Wat het die Crusaders werklik gedra?

Wat het die Crusaders werklik gedra?

Wat het diegene wat die Eerste Kruistog gestap het, gedra? Ek praat nie net van die edeles ens nie, maar ook van die arme mense wat na bewering gegaan het (of is dit 'n mite?). En hoe het hulle geklee volgens hul eie modes/standaarde/gewoontes op pad? Dit het lank geneem om na Jerusalem te kom, so ek dink dat hulle op 'n stadium nuwe drade moes kry?


Ek bedek net die boere. Boere het op drie maniere aan die Eerste Kruistog deelgeneem. Eerstens, in die baie swak georganiseerde People's Crusade wat die Eerste Crusader -leërs 'n paar maande voorafgegaan het. Tweedens sou die boerdery die grootste deel van die leërs uitgemaak wat vir die Eerste Kruistog opgewek is, en die meeste sou eenvoudig hul gewone werkklere dra. Derdens het kampvolgers, spesialiste, vakmanne die kruisvaardersleërs vergesel.

Hierdie mense dra waarskynlik wat hulle gewoonlik gedra het vir reis en werk. Baie mense het geen idee gehad hoe ver Jerusalem was en hoe die klimaat sou wees nie.

'N Tipiese reisuitrusting uit die 11de eeu sal 'n bloes van lap of vel insluit, 'n leergordel om die middel, 'n lang wolmantel oor die skouers, 'n kappie, 'n mes en 'n beursie. Sommige dra 'n langbroek, ander 'n kledingstuk. As hulle gelukkig is, het hulle 'n slang met skoene of stewels, maar baie sal kaalvoet wees. Onderklere was in hierdie tyd nie iets nie.

Mans wat oes, uit 'n Angelsaksiese kalender uit die 11de eeu. Bron

Wat het hulle gedoen toe hulle uitgeput was? Hulle het hulle gelap, en gelap, en gelap. Toe hulle skoene opraak, het hulle dit ook gelap, toe gaan hulle kaalvoet. Uiteindelik sou die People's Crusade doen wat die meeste ongedissiplineerde en onderaanbodde leërs in die veld doen: steel, buit en plunder. Aangesien hulle die grootste deel van hul tyd op Europese gebied deurgebring het, het dit nie so goed gegaan nie.

Die People's Crusade het nooit na Jerusalem gekom nie. Dit is vernietig kort nadat dit in die Slag van Civetot na Anatolië gekom het. Van die tienduisende wat vertrek het, het 'n paar duisend oorleef en na Konstantinopel teruggekeer. Sommige het by die amptelike kruisvaardersleërs aangesluit en saam met hulle na Jerusalem gegaan.


Boere het nie aan die eerste kruistog deelgeneem nie, ten minste op die manier wat hierdie vraag impliseer. Pous Urbanus II het 'n beroep op die edeles of ridders gedoen om die "Heilige Land" te gaan herower. In ruil vir hul diens verleen die pous almal wat aan die kruistogte deelgeneem het, 'vergifnis'. Boere het aan die latere kruistogte begin deelneem omdat hulle die pous se vergifnis ook wou hê. Toe skare kleinboere na Jerusalem begin trek en verwoesting in hul nasleep veroorsaak het, het die pous die vergifnis begin toeken aan mense wat sou help om 'n kruistog te borg, in 'n poging om te verhoed dat boere hulself sou kruis. Boere tydens die eerste kruistog sou afgesien wees van 'n ridder -gevolg. Hierdie mense was uiters arm en het 'n bloes en teëls gedra. As hierdie klere opraak, sal hulle dit steeds dra, want dit is al wat hulle het.


In die Eerste Kruistog is bloeiende gemeenskappe aan die Ryn en die Donau deur kruisvaarders aangeval, maar baie is gespaar weens die pogings van die pousdom (sien Duitse kruistog, 1096). In die Tweede Kruistog (1147) het die Jode in Frankryk veral gely. Philip Augustus het hulle met buitengewone erns behandel tydens die Derde Kruistog (1188). Die Jode is ook deur aanvalle deur die Shepherds 'Kruistogte van 1251 en 1320 onderwerp.

Die plaaslike biskoppe het die aanvalle gekant en destyds wyd veroordeel as 'n skending van die kruistogte se doel, wat nie teen die Jode gerig was nie. [1] Die oortreders het egter meestal wettige straf vrygespring. Die sosiale posisie van die Jode in Wes -Europa het ook aansienlik versleg, en wetlike beperkings het toegeneem tydens en na die kruistogte. Hulle het die weg voorberei vir anti-Joodse wetgewing van pous Innocentius III. Die kruistogte het eeue lank sterk gevoelens van onwilligheid aan beide kante tot gevolg gehad en vorm dus 'n keerpunt in die verhouding tussen Jode en Christene.

Verdedig in die Heilige Land Edit

Die Jode het Haifa byna alleen teen die kruisvaarders verdedig [ aanhaling nodig ], 'n hele maand (Junie - Julie 1099) in die beleërde stad in hewige gevegte. Gedurende hierdie tyd, 'n volle duisend jaar na die val van die Joodse staat, was daar Joodse gemeenskappe regoor die land. Vyftig van hulle is bekend en sluit Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea in. [2] [3]

Jode het sy-aan-sy met Moslem-soldate geveg om Jerusalem teen die kruisvaarders te verdedig. [4] Universiteit van Saint Louis, professor Thomas F. Madden, skrywer van 'N Beknopte geskiedenis van die kruistogte, beweer die 'Joodse verdedigers' van die stad ken die reëls van oorlogvoering en trek terug na hul sinagoge om 'voor te berei vir die dood', aangesien die kruisvaarders die buitemure oortree het. [5] Volgens die Moslem-kroniek van Ibn al-Qalanisi, "het die Jode in hul sinagoge vergader, en die Franken het dit oor hul koppe verbrand." [6] Een hedendaagse bron beweer selfs dat die kruisvaarders "[omsingel] die gillende, vlamgemartelde mensdom wat sing" Christ We Adore Thee! " met hul kruisvaarderkruise hoog gehou. " [7] 'n Hedendaagse Joodse mededeling bevestig egter nie die berig dat Jode eintlik in die sinagoge was toe dit aan die brand gesteek is nie. [8] Hierdie brief is in 1975 deur die historikus Shelomo Dov Goitein onder die Geniza -versameling in Kaïro ontdek. [9] Geskiedkundiges glo dat dit slegs twee weke na die beleg geskryf is, wat dit "die vroegste verslag oor die verowering in enige taal" maak. [9] Bronne is dit egter eens dat 'n sinagoge tydens die beleg verbrand is. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Ransoming Edit

Na die beleg is Jode wat gevange geneem is uit die Rotskoepel, saam met inheemse Christene, gemaak om die stad van die versneuwelde skoon te maak. [10] Tancred het 'n paar Jode as krygsgevangenes geneem en hulle na Apulië in die suide van Italië gedeporteer. Verskeie van hierdie Jode het nie na hul eindbestemming gekom nie, want "Baie van hulle is [...] in die see gegooi of onderweg onthoof." [10] Talle Jode en hul heilige boeke (insluitend die Aleppo Codex) is deur Raymond van Toulouse losgeld gehou. [11] Die Karaïtiese Joodse gemeenskap van Ashkelon (Ascalon) het hul kollegialiste in Alexandrië uitgereik om eers vir die heilige boeke te betaal en daarna oor 'n paar maande die sakke van Jode gered. [10] Alles wat losgekoop kon word, is bevry teen die somer van 1100. Die paar wat nie gered kon word nie, is óf tot die Christendom bekeer óf gedood. [12]

Beskermingspogings deur Christene in die Westerse Christendom Edit

Voor die Eerste Kruistog is daar verskeie verslae oor samewerking tussen Christene en Jode. Daar was nie net ekonomiese samewerking nie, met Jode wat betrokke was by verskeie bedrywe soos handel, kruising en finansiële advies, maar Jode en Christene was ook sosiaal met mekaar en het selfs mekaar se troues en begrafnisse bygewoon. [13]

Toe die kruistogte begin, loop baie Jode die gevaar om doodgemaak te word. Daar is gedokumenteerde verslae oor hoe Christene opgestaan ​​het en probeer het om die naburige Jode te beskerm namate die kruistogte versprei en verskillende dorpe en stede bereik het. In die Duitse stad Trier het die plaaslike biskop probeer om die Jode te beskerm. [14] Die biskop was egter nog nuut in die stad en het nie die politieke mag gehad wat nodig was om die stad saam te snoer nie. In die lig van die kruisvaarders se aanval het die plaaslike biskop sy poging om die Jode te red laat vaar en vir hulle gesê: "Julle kan nie gered word nie - julle God wil julle nie nou red soos vroeër nie. Kyk na hierdie groot menigte wat staan ​​voor die poort van die paleis ", en dwing hulle om te kies tussen bekering en verwydering uit sy paleis. [14]

Ander Duitse stede het soortgelyke ervarings gehad, en sommige dorpe soos Mainz het die plaaslike burgers laat veg teen die inkomende kruisvaarders. [14] 'n Ander Duitse stad, Keulen, het tydens die Joodse vakansie Shavuot al die plaaslike Jode onder hul Christelike bure weggesteek en die res van die vakansie saam met die Christelike kennisse deurgebring. [14]

Die einde van die kruistogte het baie verhale meegebring uit Joodse en Christelike bronne. Onder die meer bekende Joodse vertellings is die kronieke van Solomon Bar Simson en Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan, The Narrative of the Old Persecutions deur Mainz Anonymous en Sefer Zekhirah, of The Book of Remembrance, deur Rabbi Ephraim van Bonn. [ aanhaling nodig ]

Die Chronicle of Solomon Bar Simson (1140) is meestal 'n verslag van wat tydens die eerste kruistog gebeur het. Bar Simson bespreek die martelaarskap van die gemeenskappe meer akkuraat as die seldsame bekering van individue. Daar word algemeen aanvaar dat Bar Simson werklik bestaan, maar dit is moeilik om seker te wees wie die Kroniek geskryf het en vir watter doel.

Dit is bekend dat die kroniek van Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan (middel 12de eeu) geskryf is deur 'n persoon met die naam Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan, wat in sy tyd baie gewild was vanweë sy geskrifte. Daar word vermoed dat hy baie van sy inligting by Bar Simson geleen het, aangesien baie van die inligting dieselfde is. Sy skryfwerk hier is uiters emosioneel en neem in 'n sekere sin 'n meer apokaliptiese toon aan. Daar is 'n besliste gevoel van persoonlike ervaring uit hierdie kroniek, ervaring met dood en lyding in sy gemeenskap en ander. Hierdie kroniek was destyds uiters gewild, aangesien verskeie manuskripte op 'n magdom plekke daaroor geskryf is.

Die vertelling van die ou vervolging (14de eeu) is, soos die gebrek aan die naam van die skrywer impliseer, afkomstig van 'n onbekende skrywer. Die hooffokus van hierdie vertelling is op Mainz en neem 'n baie realistiese standpunt in oor die kruistogte. Dit vertel van die selfgenoegsaamheid van Rynse Jode, van die reaksies wat Mainz -Jode gehad het op nuus van ander gemeenskappe wat die kruisvaarders val, en van hul beurt na die kerk om hulle te beskerm, net om daar meer wanhoop te vind. Dit bevat ook inligting uit die laat Middeleeue oor Jode wat met putvergiftiging geassosieer word.

Sefer Zekhirah (laat 1160's, vroeg tot middel 1170's) het 'n baie bekende skrywer, Rabbi Ephraim, wat 'n bekende liturg van sy tyd was. Hy was 13 tydens die Tweede Kruistog, en word beskou as 'n ooggetuie van baie van die gebeure wat gedurende daardie tyd plaasgevind het. Hierdie skrywe was self nogal gewild en bestaan ​​uit 'n reeks gedigte wat almal bedroef is oor die lyding van die Jode deur middel van metafore en verwysings na fabels. Ondanks die emosionele aantrekkingskrag daarvan, word sy weergawes onderskryf deur ander geskrifte uit die tyd en is dit gewoonlik nie so skeef soos die twee kronieke nie.

Die besonderhede agter hierdie vertellings kan almal gevind word in verskeie sekondêre historiese bronne, waaronder Robert Chazan God, die mensdom en die geskiedenis en Shlomo Eidelberg's Die Jode en die kruistogtewat elkeen 'n agtergrond gee vir die vertellings en die gevolge daarvan op die Europese Joodse en Christelike godsdiens bespreek.

Van Robert Chazan In die jaar 1096: Die eerste kruistog en die Jode gee besonderhede oor die veranderinge wat in die Joodse/Christelike verhoudings aangebring is as gevolg van die Eerste Kruistog. Hy fokus op die vraag of die kruistogte werklik 'n belangrike invloed op die Jode van die tyd en in die toekoms gehad het, en wys daarop dat vervolging vir hulle niks nuuts was nie, maar praat ook oor die belangrikheid daarvan dat hulle uiters duidelik in die Europese gemeenskap gemaak word deur die kruistogte. Hulle was in 'n groot mate nie meer deel daarvan nie, maar is eerder gemaak as deel van die 'ander' soos baie in Europa reeds was, soos ateïste en heidene.

Christelike bronne vir inligting oor algemene gevoelens na die Eerste Kruistog fokus almal op die verkryging van Jerusalem. William van Tirus, Fulcher van Chartres, die Venesiaanse verdrag, die reise van Saewulf en John van Wurzburg Pelgrimsgids alle besonderhede oor Jerusalem, maar het min, indien enigiets, te sê oor Europa en die Jode. Te midde van die Eerste Kruistog was daar egter verskeie Christelike dokumente oor die kruisvaarders se aanvalle op Joodse gemeenskappe en die basis van die aanvalle. Een van hierdie dokumente is Albert van Aken oor die People's Crusade, wat fokus op die ongeorganiseerde, ongeorganiseerde boerekruistogte wat plaasgevind het saam met die georganiseerde kruistogte wat Jerusalem ingeneem het. Dit bied die persoonlike ervarings van Aken, wat in een van hierdie boere -kruistogte was, en gee verslag van die slag van verskeie groepe Jode. Hy beskryf dit as 'die' oordeel van die Here 'of' die een of ander dwaling ', en die moorde is nie net onoordeelkundig nie, maar ook sonder uitsondering. Sy verslag toon ook aan dat die kerk min kon bereik in sy pogings om hierdie slagtings te voorkom.

In die destydse Christelike geskrifte was die fokus egter baie op die pogings om na Jerusalem te kom, hoewel sommige berigte spreek van die wantroue van die kruisvaarders in die Bisantynse Ryk, verslae wat die redenasie van die Vierde Kruistog en die sak toon van Konstantinopel. Die Deeds of the Franks, wat 'n onbekende skrywer het, is so 'n verslag en het 'n duidelike vooroordeel teen die Bisantyne. Baie van die geskrifte oor latere kruistogte fokus ook steeds op Jerusalem, tot naby die einde van die kruistogte wanneer Jerusalem ophou om hul fokus te wees en die terugkeer na stabiliteit in Europa wel.

Baie van die sekondêre bronne oor hierdie tydperk bevraagteken hoe belangrik die impak van die kruistogte op beide die Joodse en Christelike gemeenskappe was. Robert Chazan glo dat die effek uiteindelik minimaal was - beide kulture was op baie maniere gewoond aan die vervolging wat uitgevoer word, en dat dit net nog 'n stap was. R. I. Moore, in sy boek Die stigting van 'n vervolgingsvereniging, beweer dat die uitwerking op Christene groot was, omdat hul hele samelewing gevoel het dat hulle van hul Joodse bure moet skei, wat hulle in staat stel om verder te vervolg in die toekoms. Ivan G. Marcus in sy artikel Die kultuur van die vroeë Ashkenaz voer aan dat die Jode fisies, geestelik en geestelik van die Christelike gemeenskap weggetrek het vanweë die wreedheid en skokkende aard van die kruistogte. Dit alles en nog meer gee verskillende menings oor die uitslae van die kruistogte, maar almal is dit eens dat die kruistogte 'n skeiding tussen die twee godsdienste veroorsaak het.


Stygende styging, woeste val

Oor honderde jare het die Tempeliers ontwikkel van 'n klein, lappige orde van vroom krygers en lyfwagte tot een van die magtigste organisasies op aarde. Hulle was moontlik amptelik die 'Arme mede-soldate van Christus', maar die bevel het in werklikheid 'n multinasionale sakereyk geword wat vloot skepe en uitgestrekte stukke beheer, insluitend plase, watermeulens en wingerde.

Die Tempeliers het hul ongelooflike rykdom opgebou deur talle inkomstestrome. Hulle het veral 'n vroeë banknetwerk gestig wat Europa en die Midde -Ooste oorskry het. Pelgrims wat na die Heilige Land op pad was, sou hul geld by een tempelhuis huis deponeer en 'n kredietbrief ontvang waarmee hulle hul geld by 'n ander 'tak' elders op hul reis kon trek. Die presiese bewoording van hierdie kredietbriewe en hoe hulle bedrog deur gewetenlose pelgrims voorkom het, bly 'n groot historiese raaisel. Die briewe bevat waarskynlik geheime sifers wat slegs Templars kon verstaan, wat bewys dat hulle eg was.

Die Tempeliers het selfs as banke en makelaars gewerk vir die rykste en magtigste mense in die Christendom

Die bevel het ook geld gemaak uit buit wat hulle op die voorste linies gevang het, en - nog belangriker - baie groot skenkings ontvang van beskermhere wat hul Christelike geloofsbriewe wou bevestig. Soos 'n opstel oor die Tempeliers in die American Historical Review dit in 1902 stel: 'Geskenke aan die orde is beskou as dade van vroomheid wat bereken is om die ewige welsyn van die gewer se siel te bevorder, 'n onderwerp waarin die gemiddelde mens van die Middeleeue diepste belangstelling. '

Die Tempeliers was selfs banke en makelaars vir die rykste en magtigste mense in die Christendom. Koninklikes sou hul rykdom in die kassiere van die Tempeliers deponeer, en hulle sou die Tempeliers gebruik as hul tussengangers by die aankoop van grond (Henry III van Engeland het 'n eiland aan die kus van Frankryk gekoop deur die geld deur sy Templar -verteenwoordigers te stuur).

Daar word ook bespiegel dat die Tempeliers hul oog op antieke skatte in die Heilige Land gehad het. Die eerste basis van die bevel was die Al-Aqsa-moskee in Jerusalem, wat deur die kruisvaarders gevange geneem en hergebruik is. Hierdie gebou is op die Tempelberg, waar koning Salomo se tempel eens gestaan ​​het, en daar word gesê dat die Tempeliers onder die moskee gegrawe het op soek na verlore Christelike oorblyfsels soos die Spear of Destiny en die Ark van die Verbond. Argeoloë in die Victoriaanse tydperk het die Tempelberg opgegrawe en wel gevind wat skynbaar Templar -artefakte was, soos 'n swaard en 'n kruis, wat daarop dui dat die ridders inderdaad op 'n skattejag daar was.

Kan skatjagters Carl Cookson en Hamilton White op die punt staan ​​om die geheime van die mees fassinerende en raaiselagtige militêre orde ter wêreld te ontsluit? #LostRelics pic.twitter.com/Od5EF5MghZ

- GESKIEDENIS VK (@HISTORYUK) 6 April 2020

Maar dit alles het in 1307 wreed tot 'n einde gekom. Gerugte het versprei dat die bevel geheime, duiwelse rituele uitgevoer het, en Filip IV van Frankryk - wat skuldig was aan die Tempeliers - het hierdie voorbeeld van Middeleeuse 'valse nuus' as 'n verskoning gebruik bekragtig die bestelling. Massa -arrestasies en teregstellings van Tempeliers in Frankryk en die res van Europa het gevolg, met die hele organisasie wat 'n paar jaar later afgeskaf is. Maar 'n groot raaisel bly uit hierdie hoofstuk van die geskiedenis: wat het geword van die geld en mitiese skatte wat die Tempeliers na bewering versamel het?


Die werklike geskiedenis van die kruistogte

Met die moontlike uitsondering van Umberto Eco, is middeleeuse geleerdes nie gewoond daaraan om veel media -aandag te trek nie. Ons is geneig om stil te bly (behalwe gedurende die jaarlikse bacchanalia wat ons die Internasionale Kongres vir Middeleeuse Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, van alle plekke noem), en kyk na muwwe kronieke en skryf saai, maar noukeurige studies wat min sal lees. Stel jou dan my verbasing voor toe die Middeleeue skielik relevant geword het binne enkele dae na die aanvalle van 11 September.

As 'n kruistoghistorikus het ek gevind dat die rustige eensaamheid van die ivoortoring deur joernaliste, redakteurs en talkshow-gashere aan skerwe sperdatums verbrysel is, wat gretig was om die werklike idee te kry. Wat was die kruistogte?, het hulle gevra. Wanneer was hulle? Presies hoe ongevoelig was president George W. Bush omdat hy die woord gebruik het kruistog in sy opmerkings? By 'n paar van my bellers het ek die duidelike indruk gehad dat hulle reeds die antwoorde op hul vrae ken, of ten minste gedink het dat hulle dit weet. Wat hulle regtig wou gehad het, was 'n deskundige om dit alles terug te sê. Ek is byvoorbeeld gereeld gevra om kommentaar te lewer oor die feit dat die Islamitiese wêreld 'n regverdige grief teen die Weste het. Het die huidige geweld, voortbestaan ​​dit, sy oorsprong in die kruistogte en brutale en onuitgelokte aanvalle op 'n gesofistikeerde en verdraagsame Moslemwêreld? Met ander woorde, is die kruistogte nie regtig die skuld nie?

Osama bin Laden dink beslis so. In sy verskillende video -optredes het hy nooit die Amerikaanse oorlog teen terrorisme as 'n nuwe kruistog teen Islam beskryf nie. Oud-president Bill Clinton het ook die kruistogte as die oorsaak van die huidige konflik aangewend. In 'n toespraak aan die Universiteit van Georgetown, vertel hy (en verfraai) 'n slagting van Jode na die kruisvaarders verowering van Jerusalem in 1099.

Teken nou in om aan te hou lees. Intekenare het volledige digitale toegang.


Hoe om die Jerusalem -kruis te gebruik

Die opvallende ontwerp van die Jerusalem-kruis maak dit 'n gewilde keuse onder diegene wat op soek is na 'n unieke manier om hul geloof uit te spreek. Dit is perfek vir diegene wat op soek is na 'n kruis wat hulle herinner aan Jesus se verbinding met die Heilige Land. Die kruis kan as 'n halssnoer, manchetknope of as 'n speld gedra word. Sleutelringe, briefopeners en boekmerke versier met die kruis van Jerusalem is slegs 'n paar maniere om hulde te bring aan die land waar die wortels van ons geloof begrawe is.


Van 'n hospitaal tot die Knights Hospitallers

Omstreeks 1048 het handelaars uit die Republiek Amalfi (in Italië) toestemming gekry van die Fatimidiese kalief van Egipte om 'n kerk, klooster en hospitaal in die heilige stad Jerusalem te bou. Die hospitaal is gestig op die terrein van die klooster van Johannes die Doper, en die taak om dit te bestuur is aan 'n gemeenskap van Benediktynse monnike gegee. Die monnike sou sorg vir arm en siek pelgrims wat die heilige stad besoek het.

Grootmeester Pierre d'Aubusson en senior Knights Hospitaal. ( Publieke domein )

In 1099 word die koninkryk van Jerusalem gestig na die sukses van die Eerste Kruistog. Op daardie stadium was die hoof van die hospitaal 'n leke -broer met die naam Gerard. Onder leiding van Gerard het die gemeenskap se werk in Jerusalem verskerp en is meer hospitale gestig in Provençaalse en Italiaanse stede wat langs die pad na die Heilige Land was. Op 15 Februarie 1113 erken 'n pouslike bul wat deur pous Paschal II uitgereik is die grondslag van die hospitaal, en die bevel is formeel aangewys as die Orde van Ridders van die hospitaal van Sint Johannes van Jerusalem. Alhoewel die pouslike bul die bevel onder die kerk geplaas het, was dit vry om sy meerderes te kies sonder inmenging van sekulêre of godsdienstige owerhede.

"Piae Postulatio Voluntatis". Bull uitgereik deur pous Paschal II in 1113 ten gunste van die Orde van St. John Hospitaller, wat 'n gemeenskap van vrome manne sou verander in 'n instelling binne die Kerk. Kragtens hierdie dokument erken die pous die bestaan ​​van die nuwe organisasie amptelik as 'n aktiewe en militante deel van die Rooms -Katolieke Kerk, wat dit pouslike beskerming verleen en die eiendom daarvan in Europa en Asië bevestig. ( Publieke domein )

Die herorganisasie van die Knights Hospitaller in 'n weermag het deels plaasgevind as gevolg van die opkoms van die Tempeliers. Hierdie bevel is in 1119 ingestel vir die beskerming van pelgrims na die Heilige Land en was geweldig gewild. Om met die Tempeliers om ondersteuning mee te ding, het die Hospitallers die militêre rol van hul mededingers nageboots, wat spoedig vrugte afgewerp het. Desondanks het die hospitale hul rol as versorgers behou. As gevolg hiervan het die hiërargie van die orde bestaan ​​uit drie geledere - ridders, kapelane en dienende broers.

Ridder Hospitaal van Saint John. (JLazarusEB/ Afwykende kuns)


Vierde Kruistog: Die tweede beleg van Konstantinopel

Hierdie skildery uit die 17de eeu toon kruisvaarders wat die stad Konstantinopel binnegaan in 1203. Die kruisvaarders sou die stad afdank en dit uiteindelik in 1204 verower na verskeie aanvalle.

Richard McCaffery Robinson
Augustus 1993

Vroeg in Oktober 1202 vaar 'n vloot van 200 skepe uit die strandmeer van Venesië. Baniere sweep uit elke mastkop, sommige dra die leeu van Venesië, ander beskuldig van die wapens van die edelste huise van Frankryk.

Die vloot was die staatsgalei van Doge Enrico Dandolo, die verkose hertog van die Venesiese Republiek. Hy was meer as 80 jaar oud en amper blind, maar onbeperk in krag en vermoë. Sy kombuis is met 'n keiserlike vermiljoen geverf, en 'n sy -afdak met bedekking bedek die kakdek waarop die doge in staat was. Voor hom klink vier silwer basuine, wat honderde basuine, tromme en tabors van die ander skepe af beantwoord is.

Die doel van hierdie ekspedisie, hierdie vierde kruistog, was om die heilige stad Jerusalem terug te wen. Dit is in die 7de eeu deur Islamitiese leërs verower, deur die Eerste Kruistog in 1099 vir die Christendom teruggekry. In 1187, tydens die Tweede Kruistog en net 15 jaar voor die doge ’s vloot seil, val Jerusalem op die Moslem Saladin, wat stel dan 'n herstelpoging deur die Derde Kruistog (1189-92) stil. Die vierde kruistog sou 'n nuwe strategie volg: aanval op Egipte, die basis van Moslemmag. Maar dit het nooit sy doel bereik nie. 'N Bizarre wending van die lot het die jongste kruisvaarders in 'n totaal onverwagte rigting gedraai - in die rigting van die groot Christelike stad, Konstantinopel, die hoofstad van die Bisantynse (of Oos -Romeinse) Ryk.

Die Vierde Kruistog is eintlik in 1199 bedink tydens 'n springtoernooi wat Thibaut, graaf van Champagne, in Ecry-sur-Aisne in Noord-Frankryk gehou het. Daar, in 'n skielike golf van massa -emosie, val die saamgestelde ridders en baronne op hul knieë en huil oor die gevange Heilige Land. Hulle het plegtige eed afgelê om as gewapende pelgrims te gaan om dit van die ongelowiges af te weer. In die daaropvolgende maande het die kruistog gestalte gekry in 'n reeks feodale byeenkomste onder leiding van graaf Thibaut Baldwin, graaf van Vlaandere en Louis, graaf van Blois. In plaas daarvan om hul leër te verslyt deur 'n lang landmars deur vyandige gebied, het die leiers besluit om Egipte per see te bereik. 'N Afvaardiging van ses betroubare ridders het na Venesië, die toonaangewende seevaartstad van Wes -Europa, gegaan om te reël. Een van die gesante, Geoffrey van Villehardouin, maarskalk van Champagne, het later 'n kroniek van die ekspedisie geskryf.

In Venesië het Villehardouin en sy mede -gesante 'n ooreenkoms met Doge Dandolo en sy raad gesluit. Venesië voorsien vervoerskepe, bemannings en 'n jaar se voorsiening vir 4500 ridders met hul monteurs, 9000 soldate en sersante (feodale wapenskut van minder as riddersrang) en 20.000 gewone voetgangers, vir 'n totaal van 33.500 man en 4 500 perde.

Die prys vir hierdie armada sou 84 000 merke silwer wees. En die ou doge het Venesië nie 'n blote voorraadkontrakteur gemaak nie, maar 'n volwaardige vennoot in die kruistog. In ruil vir 'n halwe deel van alle verowerings, sou Venesië 'n begeleiding van 50 ten volle bemande oorlogsgaleies voorsien. Die groot vloot sou in die somer van die volgende jaar, 1202, vaar.

Omtrent daardie tyd het 'n tienerseun uit gevangenskap in Konstantinopel ontsnap. Hy was Alexius Angelus, seun van die afgesette Bisantynse keiser Isak II. Ses jaar tevore, in 1195, het die broer van Isaac, ook genoem Alexius, hom omvergewerp en in die gevangenis gesit en die troon as keiser Alexius III ingeneem. Isak was verblind, die tradisionele Bisantynse manier om met mededingers om te gaan, aangesien 'n blinde man volgens die gewoonte nie keiser kon wees nie.

Die talente van Alexius III stem nie ooreen met sy ambisie nie. Hy het sy swaer admiraal van die keiserlike vloot gemaak. Die swaer het die vloot ontneem en toerusting en hele skepe verkoop om sy eie sakke uit te voer. Die nuwe keiser was ook sorgeloos om sy gevangenes te bewaak. Die verblinde Isak II was geen bedreiging nie, maar sy seun Alexius was sterk genoeg om te ontsnap. Uiteindelik het hy sy weg gevind na die hof van die Duitse koning Philip van Swaben, wie se koningin die seuntjie se suster Irene was.

Intussen was daar nog 'n noodlottige gebeurtenis - Thibaut van Champagne is dood voordat die kruistog kon begin. Om sy plek as leier in te neem, het sy mede -baronne 'n Noord -Italiaanse edelman, graaf Boniface van Montferrat, gekies. Boniface het familiebande gehad met die nominale Christelike koning van Jerusalem, leier van die Christene wat nog steeds in dele van die Heilige Land gehou het. Hy was toevallig ook 'n vasaal van koning Filip van Swabië, dieselfde by wie die jong prins Alexius skuil. Boniface en die jong prins het mekaar waarskynlik ontmoet toe Boniface laat in 1201 sy hof van die heer besoek het.

En nou kom die saai van 'n nuwe plan - die kruisvaarders kon by Konstantinopel stop op pad na Egipte, die woekeraar Alexius III omverwerp en die jonk Alexius op die keiserlike troon.

Vir 500 jaar, kan onthou word, was die Bisantynse Ryk die belangrikste bolwerk van die Christendom teen die Islamitiese uitdaging. Teen 1201 was die ryk, hoewel dit baie gekrimp en verswak was, steeds die magtigste en bes georganiseerde Christelike state. Maar die verhoudings tussen Bisantyne en Westerse Christene het deur die eeu van die kruistogte, waaroor hulle dikwels in stryd was, geleidelik versleg. Vanuit 'n Westerse oogpunt is 'n keiser wat sy troon aan kruisvaarders te danke het, meer samewerkend.

Gedurende die laat lente van 1202 het die kruisvaarders by Venesië begin vergader. Teen die beoogde vertrekdatum het hul gasheer ongeveer 10 000 man beloop, baie minder as die 33 500 wat beplan is - en te min om die ooreengekome huurprys te voorsien. Die Venesiërs het hul gewone handel opgeskort om 'n enorme vloot te bou en toe te rus. Nou het hulle geëis dat die kruisvaarders hul einde aan die ooreenkoms sou onderhou: 84 000 punte, of geen kruistog nie.

Die vierde kruistog het gelyk asof dit in duie stort. Toe maak Doge Dandolo 'n aanbod. Die Venesiërs sou die onbetaalde saldo van die vervoerkoste opskort in ruil vir 'n klein vergoeding-die kruisvaarders en hulp by die verowering van die stad Zara (later Zadar, Joegoslavië), 'n Hongaarse hawe aan die Dalmatiese kus van die Adriatiese See . Vir die meer vroom kruisvaarders was dit 'n duiwelbedinging, 'n onheilige oorlog teen mede -Christene. Maar ander, insluitend die voorste baronne, het geen keuse gesien as die kruistog vorentoe sou gaan nie. Met 'n bietjie moeite het hulle die teenstanders oorreed om saam te gaan.

Uiteindelik kon die vloot vertrek. Dit het drie hooftipes skepe ingesluit. Ongeveer 40 vaartuie, wat bloot skepe genoem word, was standaard Mediterreense swaar vragskepe, meestal twee dekke, met hoë voor- en na-kastele, twee stuur roeispane en twee maste waarop driehoekige lateile van lang skuins werwe gehang is. Hulle was traag en onhandig, maar hul grootte en lengte het hulle effektief gemaak in die verdediging - of in die aanval teen vaste doelwitte. 60 veggaleies het nie selfone ondersteun nie, maar nie deur vasgekettingde slawe of gevangenes nie, maar deur vrye en gewapende Venesiese seelui.

Die oorblywende ongeveer 100 skepe was uissiers (of huissiers), perdtransport. Dit lyk soos galeie, maar was groter en swaarder, met minder spane. 'N Uissier -houer is verdeel in stalletjies vir perde, wat stewig vasgemaak was toe die vaartuig aan die gang was. 'N Deuragtige luik oor 'n ingangspoort in die romp agter kan neergesit word, op 'n sleepbrug, om die perde in en uit die ruim te lei. Hierdie middeleeuse eweknieë van die LST (landingsskip, tenk) het ridders toegelaat om aan wal te gaan vir onmiddellike optrede.

Op 10 November bereik die vloot Zara, wat oorgegee het na 'n beleg van 14 dae. Baie ridders het verlate gegaan eerder as om deel te neem. (Een daarvan was Simon de Montfort, wie se seun, ook Simon de Montfort genoem, later bekendheid verwerf het in Engeland as die vader van die parlement. Die ou morele probleme van Simon oor kruistogte teen Christene was van korte duur, want dit was hy wat later gelei het die wrede Albigensiaanse kruistog, wat 'n groot deel van Suid -Frankryk verwoes het ten einde kettery uit te wis.) Nadat Zara intussen die pous Innocentius III die Venesiërs uitgesluit het en gedreig het om die hele kruistog te verban.

Die kruisvaarders het die winterkwartiere in Zara opgerig, aangesien dit te laat in die seisoen was om aan te gaan. Daar het die leiers met prins Alexius vergader en ooreengekom om hom op die Bisantynse troon te plaas in die plek van Alexius III. Die woekeraar is in Konstantinopel gehaat, het prins Alexius hulle verseker. In ruil vir die kruisvaardershulp, het hy belowe om hul skuld aan die Venesiërs af te betaal en 'n Bisantynse leër te lei in die voorgestelde aanval op Egipte.

In die lente van 1203 vertrek die kruistog vanaf Zara. And then an odd incident took place as the fleet rounded the southern tip of Greece. The crusaders passed passed two ships carrying knights and men-at-arms—who hid their faces in shame when the ships were hailed and boarded. They had never joined the main crusading force at Venice, but had sailed to the Holy Land on their own from another port. The errant knights had accomplished nothing and suffered heavily from the plague before giving up. According to Villehardouin, one now deserted in reverse.

Do what you like with anything I’ve left behind, he told his comrades, I’m going with these people, for it certainly seems to me they’ll win some land for themselves! And with that less-than-pious remark, he jumped into the boat with the departing boarding party and joined the fleet.

On June 24, 1203, the fleet passed in review beneath the walls of Constantinople. The crusaders landed on the Asian side of the Bosporus and—following a skirmish ashore—set up a base at the city of Scutari, just a mile across the Bosporus from Constantinople. On July 3, at Dandolo’s suggestion, they tried to trigger a popular rising in young Alexius’ favor. Alexius stood dressed in state robes on the poop of a galley that rowed back and forth under the walls of the city to display their rightful emperor to the people. The response was less than overwhelming. When the galley came close to the walls it was met by a hail of arrows, not by the hoped-for cheers.

That episode was fair warning for the crusaders’ leaders, who, especially wily old Dandolo, have been accused of cynically plotting the conquest of Constantinople for their own profit. If Dandolo and the other leaders sincerely believed in Prince Alexius as their vehicle, their belief was wrong. A Byzantine emperor was not a dynastic king like those of the feudal West. In the Roman imperial tradition, he was more a president for life with absolute authority. Whoever could take the throne and hold it was accepted as emperor. But young Alexius had no special right to the throne simply because he was the son of a deposed former emperor—and, whatever the Byzantines thought of their present emperor, they would not take a new one at the hands of foreigners.

Losing hope of a popular uprising, the crusaders then settled down to the serious matter at hand. The city of Constantinople (today’s Istanbul, Turkey) was roughly triangular, set on a peninsula between the Sea of Marmara on the south and the Golden Horn, the city’s great harbor, on the north. Only to the west could it be attacked by land—and the land walls were one of the world’s greatest fortifications. Built 800 years earlier by the Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great, they consisted of a moat backed up by a parapet, and behind that a double wall. Less elaborate single walls protected the city along the Marmara shore and the Golden Horn harbor front. The Golden Horn was guarded by a chain across the harbor entrance, and the far end of the chain was covered in turn by a fortress called the Tower of Galata.

Armies far mightier than the crusaders had dashed themselves to ruin before those defenses. Constantinople withstood two epic sieges by the Muslim Arabs, from 673 to 678 and in 717, and other sieges by Avars, Bulgars and Russian Vikings. Manning its walls were the hard core of the Byzantine army, the feared ax-wielding Varangian Guard. First recruited from Vikings, the Varangian Guard became heavily Anglo-Saxon in the years after the Norman conquest of England. Aiding the defense were Pisans, bitter trading rivals of the Venetians.

The city’s first line of defense normally would have been the dromons, Byzantium’s great double-banked galleys. But the graft of the emperor’s brother-in-law had reduced the fleet to 20 old and useless ships. The Byzantines could only take defensive positions and wait for the blow to land. It came on July 5. The crusaders crossed the Bosporus, landing near the Tower of Galata. A few dromons could have intervened with decisive effect at this point, but no Byzantine ships were fit for action.

Emperor Alexius III led a large field army out to oppose the landing. Crusader horse-transports ran onto the beach, supported by crossbow and archery fire, and dropped their entry-port covers as ramps. Down rode armored French knights, lances couched. A century earlier, the Byzantine princess and historian Anna Comnena had written that a French knight’s charge would make a hole through the walls of Babylon. The Byzantines retreated, abandoning tents and booty to the crusaders.

The Tower of Galata was now open to attack. Its English, Danish and Pisan garrison mounted an active defense, making sallies against the invaders. In one such action the defenders were forced back and could not shut the gates of the tower before the advancing French. It fell by storm. A giant Venetian transport, Aquila (Eagle), charged the harbor chain under full sail and snapped it. Venetian galleys rowed into the harbor, quickly disposing of the weak Byzantine squadron drawn up behind the chain. The crusaders then took up quarters in the unwalled suburbs of Pera and Estanor on the north side of the Golden Horn. Their leaders met to plan their attack on the city itself.

Doge Dandolo recommended an attack on the harbor wall. It was less formidable than the land walls, and the big transports could nudge close to serve as floating siege towers. The French, however, wanted to fight ashore, in their own element. The final decision was to mount a double attack, the Venetians against the harbor wall and the French against the north end of the land wall, adjacent to the Palace of Blachernae. This section of wall was a late addition and somewhat weaker than the original Theodosian land walls. After crossing the Golden Horn, the French took up a position opposite the wall, near a fortified monastery they called Bohemond’s Castle after a hero of the First Crusade.

The double assault was launched on July 17. The Venetian fleet formed up in line and advanced against the harbor wall. The big transports raised flying assault bridges, fashioned from spars and suspended from their foremasts, an arrangement that allowed men on the bridgeheads to fight, three abreast, from positions equal in height to the tops of the towers they were assaulting. Fire support was provided by mangonels and petraries, catapult-like mechanical artillery set up aboard the ships. Light and speedy by comparison, the maneuverable galleys were ready to throw reinforcements ashore where needed.

The attack hung in the balance until Doge Dandolo ordered his own galley to advance and set him ashore. The courage of the old doge fired up the Venetians, and they pressed home the attack. The Venetian banner was hoisted atop a wall tower. Soon 25 towers—about a mile of wall—were taken.

Behind the wall, however, the Varangian guardsmen held their ground. Unable to advance, the Venetians set fire to nearby buildings. Driven by the wind, the fire then burned much of the city. The Venetians also captured a few horses on the waterfront, and with some irony, as one naval historian put it, sent them around to the French knights.

The French attack on the land wall did not go so well. Scaling ladders were less effective than the Venetians’ floating siege towers, and the assault was thrown back. Emperor Alexius III took to the field in a counterattack, leading an imperial force of nine battles, or massed formations, out the gates. The French met it with seven battles of their own.

As often happened with feudal armies, the logic of command and control conflicted with the chivalric impulse to be first in the attack. Count Baldwin, in command of the leading battle, at first held his ground, but other crusaders went brashly forward—forcing Baldwin to follow, to save face—until they all found themselves dangerously exposed to the Byzantine army and out of sight of most of their own force.

Word of the French peril reached Doge Dandolo. Saying he would live or die with the crusaders, he ordered his men to abandon their hard-won towers and redeploy in support of their allies. And at the sight of Venetian galleys moving up the harbor to set more troops ashore, the emperor retreated into the city. He had achieved his tactical objective, holding off the French and forcing the Venetians to abandon their gains.

But Alexius III also had lost his nerve. That night he fled the city with his mistress and a favorite daughter — leaving his empress behind. Byzantine nobles hastily met and restored blinded old Isaac II, young Alexius’ father, in disregard of the tradition that made blindness a bar to the throne. When the crusaders heard of this, they demanded that young Alexius be crowned alongside his father. They still had a powerful army and fleet, they had nearly taken the city, and there was no real leadership among the defenders. The demand was granted, and young Alexius was escorted into the city in state, along with the doge and the leading French counts and barons.

The crusaders’ assault had failed tactically, but it had won its strategic objective. The late emperor, Alexius III, was a fugitive, and young Alexius now sat crowned beside his father as Emperor Alexius IV. And next? It was too late in the season to go on, but the crusaders looked forward to receiving supplies and Byzantine reinforcements. Come spring they could sail on to Egypt and restore the Holy Land to the Cross.

Alas, young Alexius could not keep the grand promises he had made. The imperial treasury was empty. Moreover, while the Byzantines and the crusaders were now allies in theory, their relationship was actually poor and grew steadily worse. The Byzantines detested the crudity of the French and the highhandedness of the Venetians. In turn, the Westerners despised the Byzantines as effete cowards.

After repeated riots, one of which led to a second disastrous fire, individual crusaders no longer dared show themselves in the city. Moreover, Byzantine hatred of the barbarians extended beyond the crusaders to embrace all the Western Europeans who lived in the city — even the Pisans who had fought recently and well on the Byzantine side. Men, women and children were massacred. The survivors fled to the crusader camp, considerably reinforcing the invaders’ army.

Young Alexius IV could not raise enough money to satisfy the crusaders, nor could he force them away. He fell under the influence of a noble adviser, Alexius Ducas, popularly known as Mourtzouphlos, a name that referred to his prominent, bushy eyebrows. Eventually, Mourtzouphlos did a typically Byzantine thing — he lured the young emperor into a trap, kidnapped and imprisoned him, and took the throne for himself.

Mourtzouphlos, now Emperor Alexius V (the third Emperor Alexius in one year!), was more of a leader than his recent predecessors. He slammed shut the gates of the city against the crusaders and put the defenses in order. Wooden superstructures were built atop the towers of the harbor wall, raising them two or three stories and reducing the effectiveness of the Venetian ships as floating siege towers. Gates in the wall were bricked up to eliminate weak spots in the defenses.

Mourtzouphlos also took active outreach measures. The crusader fleet was moored in the Golden Horn, directly across from the city. One December night when the wind blew from the south, he launched a fireship attack against the Venetian fleet. It was a textbook situation — in the confined anchorage, against a lee shore, the Venetians could not simply drop back and let the fireships burn out.

But they were not rattled. They manned their galleys, drove off boatloads of archers covering the fire attack, grappled the fireships and towed them clear of the fleet. According to Villehardouin, No men ever defended themselves more gallantly on the sea than the Venetians did that night.

In January, Mourtzouphlos received word that a crusader foraging expedition was raiding the town of Philia, some miles northwest of Constantinople. He ambushed the returning crusaders, but the cornered and outnumbered French knights rallied to the counterattack. They drove off the Byzantines and captured the imperial standard and the holy icon that traditionally accompanied Byzantine emperors into battle.

Mourtzouphlos nonetheless returned to Constantinople and proclaimed a victory. Asked about the standard and icon, he claimed that they were put away in safekeeping. Word of this lie quickly reached the crusaders, who did the logical thing: they mounted standard and icon on a Venetian galley and paraded them back and forth under the harbor walls. That affair was fatal to the unfortunate prisoner Alexius IV. Mourtzouphlos, humiliated, feared a palace revolt in the young deposed emperor’s name. After several efforts at poisoning failed, Mourtzouphlos had him strangled. Old Isaac II died about the same time, probably without need of assistance.

The crusaders saw they could not hope to have the cooperation of any Byzantine emperor. They resolved instead to conquer the city and take the entire Byzantine Empire for themselves. Six French and six Venetian nobles were to elect a new emperor, who would receive a quarter of the empire in his own name, the rest being divided between French feudal fiefs and Venetian holdings. Doge Dandolo—who had gradually emerged as the real leader of the crusade—saw to it that the Venetians owed no feudal duties for their quarter and a half (that is, three-eighths) of the Empire.

In the previous assault, the Venetians had succeeded against the harbor wall, so the French leaders were persuaded to join them in another amphibious attempt. Knights and horses embarked in the horse transports others boarded the assault ships. As armor protection against Byzantine mechanical artillery, the ships were protected by wooden mantlets, which were covered with vines, to soften impacts, and vinegar-soaked leather as protection against incendiary Greek fire.

On the morning of April 9, 1204, the fleet moved forward against the harbor wall to the sound of trumpets, drums and tabors, with flags and pennants flying. But a south wind made it difficult to close with the shore, and only the largest ships carried structures high enough to match Mourtzouphlos’ new defenses. Men on the bridges traded indecisive strokes with the ax-wielding Varangians in the towers. Other crusaders landed below the walls. Under cover of defensive shells called turtles, they attempted to break through the bricked-up gates.

To no avail. After several hours and no success, the crusaders were forced back, and the fleet retired. They had lost about 100 dead, while Byzantine losses were few. According to Robert de Clari, a knight who wrote an eyewitness account, some defenders added insult to injury. They dropped their breechclouts and displayed bare buttocks to the retreating crusaders.

Mourtzouphlos had personally directed the defense from high ground behind the harbor wall, near the monastery of Christ Pantopoptes, the All-Seeing. Now he proclaimed success to his people. “Am I not a good Emperor?” he asked them, and answered his own question: “I am the best Emperor you have ever had. I will dishonor and hang them all.”

A weary and dispirited group of crusading leaders met that evening to plan their next move. Some of the French suggested an attack on the Sea of Marmara side of the city, where the defenses had not been reinforced. Doge Dandolo explained that this was not practical, as the currents and prevailing winds would interfere with an assault there.

The final decision was for another attempt on the harbor wall, with one important innovation. The big transports were lashed together in pairs, allowing two ships’ bridges and assault groups to concentrate against each tower.

The assault was planned for Monday, April 12. On Sunday, all the crusaders, including the excommunicated Venetians, celebrated Mass. To allow greater concentration on the task at hand, according to Robert de Clari, all the prostitutes accompanying the crusading army were bustled onto a ship and sent far away.

On Monday the fleet attacked, aided this time by a favoring wind. But the previous setback had raised the defenders’ spirits, and the walls and towers were heavily manned. For hours the fighting was indecisive. Then a gust of wind pushed two of the largest ships, Peregrino (Pilgrim) and Paradiso, hard up against the foreshore.

An assault bridge made contact with the top level of a tower, and a Venetian scrambled onto it, only to be cut down. Then a French knight named André d’Ureboise made it across and stood his ground. (He must have been a man of exceptional skill and valor to be able to fight fully armored high above a swaying ship). Reinforcements joined d’Ureboise, and the Varangian defenders were forced out of the tower. Within minutes, five towers fell to the attackers. The action now turned to the base of the wall. A group of men with picks broke through a bricked-up gate. A warlike priest — Robert de Clari’s brother Aleaumes—crawled through the hole and drove back the defenders on the other side. A handful of knights climbed through after him.

That breakthrough took place right below Mourtzouphlos’ command post. The emperor spurred forward to counterattack. The crusaders stood their ground, and he retreated. For him, and for Byzantium, it was a fatal loss of nerve. Other gates were broken open, and war horses swarmed out of the transports and into the city. The crusader knights formed up for a mounted charge. The Byzantine defensive formation broke, and the emperor himself fled into one of his palaces.

The corner had been turned, but the crusaders were worn out by the day’s fighting and still outnumbered. They expected weeks of street-by-street fighting to come, and took up a defensive position along the wall, torched nearby buildings—the siege’s third fire—to protect themselves against a counterattack in the night.

During the night, Alexius Mourtzouphlos Ducas fled, just as Alexius III had the previous fall. Resistance ceased.

For the next three days, this greatest of Christian cities suffered a thorough and ruthless sack. Priceless treasures of antiquity were smashed to pieces or melted down for their precious metals. While the French knights and men-at-arms went on a drunken rampage, the Venetians set to work like seasoned professional thieves, scooping up the best of the fallen city’s treasures. The four great bronze horses that now grace the front of St. Mark’s in Venice are only the most notable monuments to the thoroughness of their rapacity.

The Byzantine Empire never recovered. The Latin Empire that the crusaders set up in its place was a shaky affair that never gained control of much former Byzantine territory. Boniface of Montferrat, the crusade’s nominal leader, was pushed aside, and Baldwin of Flanders became Emperor Baldwin I. The next year he was taken prisoner in an ill-advised battle. Soon the Empire was reduced to little more than the city of Constantinople, and in 1262 it was retaken by a Byzantine emperor-in-exile, Michael Paleologus. But the restored Byzantium never regained its former power and was finally and forever extinguished by the Turks in 1453.

As a military operation, the Fourth Crusade stands out as one of history’s great amphibious assaults. Twice the harbor wall of Constantinople fell to direct assault from the ships of the Venetian fleet. In most land sieges, deploying just one siege tower was a major effort. The Venetian fleet had deployed an entire line of them!

During the later age of men-of-war armed with cannon, this newborn amphibious capability was lost. Successful amphibious assaults were rare during the age of fighting sail. Even in World War I, when the Allies unsuccessfully attacked Gallipoli (prelude to an intended assault on Constantinople), soldiers were condemned to flounder ashore in ships’ boats ineffectually supported by warships. Not until World War II did amphibious warfare again reach the level of sophistication embodied in the Venetian fleet during the Fourth Crusade.

This article was written by Richard McCaffery Robinson and originally appeared in the August 1993 issue of Military History tydskrif.

Vir meer wonderlike artikels, moet u inteken op Military History tydskrif vandag!


The early cross

As a scholar of medieval Christian history and worship, I have studied this complicated history.

Second century pagan graffito depicting a man worshipping a crucified donkey-headed figure.

A famous piece of early-third century Roman wall art, the “Alexamenos graffito,” depicts two human figures, with the head of a donkey, arms stretched out in a T-shaped cross, with the caption “Alexamenos worships his god.”

Christianity was outlawed at the time in the Roman Empire and criticized by some as a religion for fools. The caricature of “Alexamenos,” offering prayers to this crucified figure was a way of depicting Christ with a donkey’s head and ridiculing his god.

But for Christians, the cross had deep meaning. They understood Christ’s death on the cross to be “completed” by God’s raising him from the dead three days later. This Resurrection was a sign of Christ’s “victory” over sin and death.

Believers could share in this victory by being baptized, forgiven of past sin and “reborn” into a new life in the Christian community, the church. Christians, then, frequently referred to the Christ’s cross both as the “wood of life” and as a “victorious Cross.”


Take what you can carry

Mandalorian armor doesn't just provide protection — it's also an heirloom because beskar can last for hundreds of years. As Sabine Wren once said, "The armor I wear is 500 years old. I reforged it to my liking, but the battles, the history, the blood all lives within it. And the same goes for every Mandalorian."

Traviss explained in Star Wars Insider that as a nomadic people, Mandalorians frugally invested much of their wealth into their armor and weapons. This was certainly practical because they could take their earnings with them.

Early in The Mandalorian, Mando receives a large payment of Beskar after delivering the Child — the most adorable version of a Yoda-like being in the galaxy — to his mysterious Imperial client (played by renowned director Werner Herzog). After Mando presents the beskar to the Armorer, she suggests that she can craft a full cuirass for him, plus "whistling birds," a type of mini-missile. The excess he donates to the foundlings, the orphaned children that the Mandalorians protect.

Catching up afterward with Greef Karga (Carl Weathers), head of the Bounty Hunters' Guild, Mando draws several stares over his shiny new threads, but he's really just following the investment strategy of ancient Mandalorians. Besides, Karga notes, the grumblers are just jealous they didn't get all that loot.


What did the Crusaders really wear? - Geskiedenis

The First Crusade had a very difficult journey getting to the Middle East. There were about 30,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 knights on horseback.

They could not use the Mediterranean Sea as the Crusaders did not control the ports on the coast of the Middle East. Therefore, they had to cross land. They travelled from France through Italy, then Eastern Europe and then through what is now Turkey. They covered hundreds of miles, through scorching heat and also deep snow in the mountain passes.

They were four separate proper Crusader armies in the First Crusade but also a large number of smaller armies. However, there was no proper command structure and problems with communications . It took a seven month siege before the city fell.

A monk called Fulcher was on the First Crusade. He wrote about the attack on the Holy City and he can be treated as an eye-witness as to what took place.

Fulcher claimed that once the Crusaders had managed to get over the walls of Jerusalem, the Muslim defenders there ran away. Fulcher claimed that the Crusaders cut down anybody they could and that the streets of Jerusalem were ankle deep in blood. The rest of the Crusaders got into the city when the gates were opened.

The slaughter continued and the Crusaders "killed whoever they wished". Those Muslims who had their lives spared, had to go round and collect the bodies before dumping them outside of the city because they stank so much. The Muslims claimed afterwards that 70,000 people were killed and that the Crusaders took whatever treasure they could from the Dome of the Rock.


Images of Pilgrims:

To help you better visualize what the Mayflower pilgrims wore, take a look at the following pictures and images of the Mayflower pilgrims:

This 1651 painting of Edward Winslow, by an unknown English painter, is the only authentic portrait that a Mayflower passenger actually sat for during their lifetime and is therefore the only likeness of a Pilgrim made from life.

Portrait of Plymouth Colony Governor Edward Winslow circa 1651

In the painting, Winslow is wearing a black doublet with gold-colored buttons down the front and a white linen collar and white cuffs. His hair is mid-length and he is not wearing a hat.

According to an article on the Pilgrim Hall Museum website, the portrait was painted during Winslow’s trip to London in 1651 at a time when the color black was very fashionable.

When the pilgrims traveled to the New World in 1620, colors were fashionable so they wouldn’t have been wearing black at that time.

In this 1843 painting, titled Embarkation of the Pilgrims, by Robert W. Weir, some of the pilgrims are depicted as wearing all black while the other pilgrims are wearing more colorful clothing.

Embarkation of the Pilgrim by Robert W. Weir circa 1843

The three kneeling men in the middle, William Brewster, Governor John Carver and Pastor Robinson, are depicted as wearing doublets and breeches in neutral shades of dark brown and black.

Robinson is also wearing a long black robe, signifying his role as the group’s religious leader. Brewster and Robinson are both wearing flat linen collars while Carver is wearing a ruffled collar.

To their right, Miles Standish, the colony’s military adviser [who, as a non-separatist, was not a pilgrim], is depicted wearing brown shoes, reddish-brown stockings and breeches with a gold or yellow stripe down the seam, a gold or yellow shirt and an armored vest, while a helmet lies on the floor by his bended knee.

The kneeling couple on the left side of the painting, William and Susannah White, are also depicted as wearing colorful clothing. Susannah is wearing a yellow and blue/gray striped dress with a red cloak while William is wearing a tan or light-brown doublet and a ruffled collar.

The woman standing on the left hand side of the painting, Elizabeth Winslow, is depicted as wearing a reddish-brown waistcoat, a gray coat or cloak, a standing collar and a wide-brimmed hat adorned with a feather.

The remaining men in the painting are depicted as wearing black or brown doublets and breeches.

In this 1900 painting, titled The Signing of the Compact in the Cabin of the Mayflower, by Edward Percy Moran, the pilgrims are also depicted as wearing a mix of black clothing and colorful clothing.

“Signing the Mayflower Compact,” oil painting by Edward Percy Moran, circa 1900

The figure standing at the desk with the pen in his hand is William Bradford and he is depicted wearing light brown shoes, white stockings, blue or black breeches, a light-colored doublet, a reddish-brown cloak and a white linen collar.

Next to him stands Miles Standish, wearing an armored vest and helmet, while William Brewster, seated at the desk with John Carver, is wearing a black robe, due to his new role as the group’s religious leader in the absence of Pastor Robinson, and Carver is wearing a brown doublet and a wide-brimmed hat.

A man in the background also wears an armored vest and helmet while another one wears a light-brown doublet and a wide-brimmed hat.

The women in the right-hand corner of the painting are wearing brown and black petticoats and waistcoats, white aprons, linen collars or kerchiefs and white linen caps.

This 1818 painting, titled Landing of the Pilgrims, by Henry Sargent depicts the Mayflower pilgrims wearing a mix of light and dark clothing.

Landing of the Pilgrims, oil painting by Henry Sargent, circa 1818-1822

The man in the center of the painting is depicted wearing black boots, brown breeches, a red doublet, a gray coat and either a helmet or a hat.

Several other pilgrims are depicted wearing red or yellow cloaks or coats while the men in the background are wearing more muted colors such as grays and browns.

The Landing of the Pilgrims, by Henry A. Bacon, circa 1877

The painting depicts Mary Chilton stepping ashore on Plymouth rock. The pilgrims are not depicted wearing black but they are wearing muted neutral colors like browns and grays.

One of the men is wearing doublet with a gorget and a helmet while the other man is wearing brown breeches, a brown doublet, a linen collar and a wide-brimmed hat.

Mary Chilton is depicted wearing a dark-colored petticoat, a brown shawl or cloak and a linen cap. It is hard to see what the other figures are wearing but they also appear to be wearing caps, shawls or wide-brimmed hats.

This 1914 painting, titled The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth, by Jennie A. Brownscombe depicts the pilgrims at the First Thanksgiving. The pilgrims are not depicted wearing black in this painting either but they are wearing neutral colors like brown.

“First Thanksgiving at Plymouth” oil painting by Jennie A. Brownscombe, circa 1914

In the painting, the men seated around the table are wearing doublets and breeches in brown, green and yellow hues. William Brewster, the pilgrim’s religious leader, is standing at the table praying while wearing a black robe with a white linen collar.

The women and girls in the painting are wearing dresses in reddish-brown/pink, purple, brown and green with white aprons and linen caps.

If you are researching the Mayflower pilgrim’s clothing for a class project, presentation or Halloween party, check out the following article about the best pilgrim costumes.


Kyk die video: Neville D- Nuwe Dinge Official Music Video Extended Version