The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Crash Course World History #15

Summary

本视频探讨了十字军东征的历史，纠正了关于其是“圣战”或欧洲早期殖民中东的错误观念。视频指出，十字军东征起初并非针对伊斯兰教的战争，而是出于宗教信仰的朝圣之旅。教皇乌尔班二世发起第一次十字军东征，旨在团结欧洲并解放耶路撒冷。虽然十字军东征未能长期建立在圣地的基督教王国，但它们展示了中世纪人对信仰的深厚信念，以及对现代历史研究的启示。

Takeaways

• 📜 十字军东征并非一开始就是欧洲人对伊斯兰的'圣战'，而是在重要方面受到宗教信仰的驱动。
• 🗡️ 早期伊斯兰王朝如倭马亚和阿拔斯对基督徒和犹太人相对宽容，只要他们缴纳税款。
• 🛡️ 塞尔柱突厥人的到来改变了局面，他们侵占了圣地，使得基督徒朝圣变得困难。
• ⚔️ 第一次官方十字军东征始于教皇乌尔班二世在1095年的号召，部分原因是为了团结欧洲。
• 🕌 十字军东征不仅仅是军事行动，更是朝圣之旅，基督教神学中并没有'圣战'的概念。
• 👑 第一次十字军东征取得了惊人的成功，其中包括攻占了耶路撒冷，并在圣殿内杀害了许多人。
• 🏰 第三十字军东征是对伊斯兰新势力——萨拉丁的回应，他是出色的将军，成功夺回了耶路撒冷。
• 🛶 第四次十字军东征因缺乏资金而偏离了原定路线，最终导致了对基督教城市君士坦丁堡的洗劫。
• 🏰 第四次十字军东征的失败并未使十字军东征的概念失去信誉，反而扩大了其定义，将任何天主教会的敌人都视为目标。
• 🌏 十字军东征最终未能在圣地建立长期的基督教王国，该地区在奥斯曼帝国到来后仍然坚定地保持伊斯兰教。
• 🧐 十字军东征提醒我们中世纪世界与我们的世界根本不同，当时的人们以一种我们今天难以想象的方式相信他们的工作是神圣的。

Q & A

十字军东征是什么时候开始的，它们的主要目的是什么？

十字军东征始于1095年，由教皇乌尔班二世发起。起初，它们并不是针对伊斯兰的“圣战”，而是受到宗教信仰的驱动，主要是为了帮助拜占庭帝国抵御塞尔柱突厥人的威胁，并解放耶路撒冷。

为什么说十字军东征并不是简单的宗教战争？

虽然十字军东征受到宗教信仰的驱动，但它们并不是简单的宗教战争。例如，早期的伊斯兰王朝如倭马亚和阿拔斯对基督徒和犹太人相对宽容，只要他们支付税款。此外，十字军东征也涉及到政治和经济因素，如拜占庭帝国的求援和教皇乌尔班二世希望统一欧洲的愿望。

为什么十字军东征被描述为朝圣之旅，而不仅仅是军事行动？

在神学上，基督教并没有“圣战”的概念，但朝圣到圣地可以帮助信徒在宗教上获得救赎。教皇乌尔班二世巧妙地将十字军东征定位为带有战争元素的朝圣之旅，这样不仅可以吸引信徒参与，也符合他们的宗教信仰。

第一次十字军东征是如何成功的，有哪些关键人物参与？

第一次十字军东征之所以成功，部分原因是因为当时的穆斯林内部分裂，如逊尼派的土耳其穆斯林没有援助什叶派的埃及人。关键人物包括戈弗雷·德·布永、博希蒙德和图卢兹的雷蒙德等。

第三次十字军东征的主要参与者有哪些，它为何著名？

第三次十字军东征的主要参与者包括法国国王腓力二世、英格兰国王理查一世和神圣罗马帝国皇帝腓特烈一世。它之所以著名，是因为这次东征是对萨拉丁夺回耶路撒冷的反应，并且参与的都是当时欧洲最重要的君主。

萨拉丁是如何成功夺回耶路撒冷的，他为何如此著名？

萨拉丁是一位出色的将军，他通过巩固在埃及的权力，然后扩张到大马士革和耶路撒冷，成功地夺回了耶路撒冷。他之所以著名，不仅是因为他的军事才能，还因为他在东西方文化交流中的角色。

第四次十字军东征为何转向攻击了基督教城市扎拉和君士坦丁堡？

第四次十字军东征因为缺乏资金而接受了威尼斯人的提议，转而攻击了反抗威尼斯的基督教城市扎拉。后来，由于未能及时获得承诺的报酬，十字军又攻击了君士坦丁堡，这是一系列复杂的政治和经济决策的结果。

为什么说第四次十字军东征是疯狂的，它对拜占庭帝国有什么影响？

第四次十字军东征被称为疯狂，因为十字军攻击并洗劫了基督教的君士坦丁堡，这是对基督教圣地的极大渎。这次事件几乎注定了拜占庭帝国的衰落，因为它削弱了帝国的力量，使其无法有效抵抗后来的外来侵略。

十字军东征对中世纪欧洲有什么影响，它们是否帮助欧洲走出中世纪？

十字军东征并没有帮助欧洲走出中世纪，反而消耗了大量的资源。虽然它们为欧洲带来了与伊斯兰世界的接触，但这种接触并没有带来预期的文化和知识交流，也没有显著促进欧洲的发展。

为什么说十字军东征对研究历史具有重要意义？

十字军东征对研究历史具有重要意义，因为它们提醒我们中世纪世界与今天的世界根本不同。通过研究十字军东征，我们可以更好地理解当时人们的信仰、价值观和生活方式，以及这些因素如何塑造了历史。

视频最后提到的“Don't Forget To Be Awesome”是什么意思，它在视频中扮演什么角色？

“Don't Forget To Be Awesome”是视频主持人约翰·格林用来鼓励观众的一种口号，意在激励人们在生活中保持积极和卓越。在视频中，它作为结束语，给观众留下深刻印象，并传达了一种积极向上的信息。

Outlines

00:00

😀 十字军东征的误解与真相

约翰·格林在这一段中介绍了十字军东征的背景和一些普遍的误解。他指出，尽管十字军东征被广泛认为是欧洲对伊斯兰的'圣战'，但起初并非如此。十字军东征实际上是一系列军事远征，起初是由于塞尔柱突厥人占领圣地，影响了基督徒的朝圣活动。教皇乌尔班二世在1095年发起第一次官方的十字军东征，旨在团结欧洲，同时解放耶路撒冷。格林强调，十字军东征不应被简化为简单的宗教战争，而是有着复杂的历史背景和动机。

05:03

😮 十字军东征的奇迹与失败

这一段讲述了第一次十字军东征的奇迹般的成功，以及第三次十字军东征的著名事件。第一次十字军东征中，尽管存在内部竞争和缺乏组织，但十字军取得了显著的胜利，包括在安条克的逆转胜利和耶路撒冷的夺取。然而，第三次十字军东征，尽管有欧洲三位重要国王的参与，最终未能夺回耶路撒冷，但这次东征改变了之后十字军的策略，将埃及作为目标。这段历史提醒我们，十字军东征并非简单的英雄叙事，而是充满了复杂的政治和宗教因素。

10:04

😱 第四次十字军东征的荒谬与后果

第四次十字军东征的叙述揭示了这次东征的荒谬性和对拜占庭帝国的毁灭性影响。超过35,000人报名参加，但由于资金问题，他们接受了威尼斯人的提议，帮助攻占反抗的基督徒城市扎拉，以换取前往安纳托利亚的船只。随后，他们又被卷入了拜占庭帝国的内斗，最终洗劫了君士坦丁堡，这一行为不仅导致了教皇的绝罚，也预示了拜占庭帝国的衰落。这次东征虽然未能实现其宗教目标，但却扩大了十字军东征的定义，将任何天主教会的敌人都视为合法目标。

🤔 十字军东征的历史意义与反思

在最后一段中，格林反思了十字军东征对现代的意义。他认为，十字军东征提醒我们中世纪世界与现代的根本不同，当时的人们以一种我们难以理解的方式信仰他们的事业的神圣性。他强调，通过研究历史，我们可以更好地理解十字军东征对参与者的生活和信仰的影响，以及从中学到的同情和理解。此外，他还提到了十字军东征并没有像一些人认为的那样，通过与伊斯兰世界的接触将欧洲从中世纪带入文艺复兴。

Keywords

💡十字军东征

十字军东征是一系列从欧洲出发到地中海东岸的军事远征。视频中提到它们在历史上突出，是因为被浪漫化和理想化，但并非简单的宗教对抗伊斯兰的“圣战”，而是有着复杂的宗教信仰和社会背景。

💡宗教信仰

在视频中，宗教信仰被强调为十字军东征的一个重要驱动力。尽管基督教没有“圣战”的概念，但朝圣到圣地可以被视为一种宗教实践，而教皇乌尔班二世将十字军东征定位为带有战斗色彩的朝圣。

💡塞尔柱突厥人

塞尔柱突厥人是一群穆斯林，他们占领了圣地并使基督徒的朝圣变得困难，这在一定程度上触发了第一次十字军东征。视频中提到，尽管他们很快意识到了自己的错误，但已经为时过晚。

💡拜占庭帝国

拜占庭帝国在曼齐刻尔特战役中失败后，感到了来自塞尔柱突厥人的威胁，并向西方寻求帮助。视频中提到，这是第一次官方十字军东征开始的背景之一。

💡教皇乌尔班二世

教皇乌尔班二世在1095年发出了第一次十字军东征的号召。视频中提到，他希望通过联合欧洲的骑士和贵族来加强自己的权威，并将解放耶路撒冷作为目标。

💡耶路撒冷

耶路撒冷是基督教、伊斯兰教和犹太教的圣地，视频中强调，十字军东征的目标之一就是解放耶路撒冷，使其成为基督教王国的一部分。

💡萨拉丁

萨拉丁是埃及的苏丹，也是库尔德人，他在视频中被描述为一位杰出的将军，成功地夺回了耶路撒冷，引发了第三次十字军东征。

💡第三次十字军东征

第三次十字军东征是欧洲对萨拉丁夺回耶路撒冷的反应。视频中提到了三位重要的欧洲君主参与了这次东征：法国的路易九世、英格兰的理查一世和神圣罗马帝国的腓特烈一世。

💡第四次十字军东征

第四次十字军东征是视频中特别提到的一次东征，因为它偏离了传统的朝圣和解放圣地的目标，转而攻击了基督教城市君士坦丁堡，导致了拜占庭帝国的衰落。

💡圣战

虽然十字军东征被一些人视为圣战，但视频中指出，基督教并没有圣战的概念。十字军东征更多是作为朝圣和带有战斗的宗教实践，而不是单纯的军事行动。

💡历史浪漫化

视频中提到，十字军东征在历史上被浪漫化和理想化，这种简化的叙述和角色塑造影响了我们对十字军东征的看法，使其成为了一种文化现象。

Highlights

Crusades并非欧洲对伊斯兰的“圣战”，而是宗教信仰在一定程度上驱动的军事远征。

早期伊斯兰王朝如倶马亚和阿拔斯对基督徒和犹太人持宽容态度，只要他们支付税金。

塞尔柱突厥人的到来改变了对基督徒朝圣者的态度，导致第一次官方十字军东征的开始。

教皇乌尔班二世号召第一次十字军东征，部分原因是为了统一欧洲。

十字军东征本质上是朝圣之旅，而非纯粹的军事行动。

第一次十字军东征意外成功，部分原因是穆斯林内部的分裂。

第三次十字军东征是对萨拉丁夺取耶路撒冷的反应，涉及欧洲三位重要国王。

理查一世和萨拉丁都是杰出的将领，赢得了士兵的尊敬。

第四次十字军东征因资金问题而偏离原定目标，转而攻击了基督教城市扎拉。

第四次十字军东征最终攻击并洗劫了君士坦丁堡，对拜占庭帝国造成了毁灭性打击。

十字军东征并未实现在圣地建立长期基督教王国的目标，且该地区最终仍然主要是穆斯林。

十字军东征并非欧洲从中世纪走向文艺复兴的桥梁，实际上对欧洲资源造成了巨大消耗。

研究十字军东征的意义在于理解中世纪世界与现代世界的根本不同。

十字军东征提醒我们，中世纪的人们以一种我们今天难以想象的方式相信其工作的神圣性。

十字军东征的历史研究强调了对参与者信仰和生活转变的同理心理解。

Crash Course节目由Stan Muller制作导演，由Danica Johnson担任剧本监督。

节目的图形团队是Thought Bubble，由Raoul Meyer和John Green共同撰写。

Transcripts

Hi there! My name is John Green; this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going

to talk about the Crusades. Ohhh, Stan, do we have to talk about the Crusades? I hate them...

Here’s the thing about the Crusades, which were a series of military expeditions from

parts of Europe to the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The real reason they feature

so prominently in history is because we’ve endlessly romanticized the story of the Crusades.

We’ve created this simple narrative with characters to root for and root against, and

it’s all been endlessly idealized by the likes of Sir Walter Scott. And there are knights

with swords and lion hearts... NO, STAN. LIONHEARTS. Thank you.

[theme music]

Let’s start by saying that initially the Crusades were not a “holy war” on the

part of Europeans against Islam, but in important ways the Crusades were driven by religious faith.

Past John: Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Religion causes all wars. Imagine no war —

I’m gonna cut you off right there before you violate copyright, me-from-the-past. But

as usual, you’re wrong. Simple readings of history are rarely sufficient. By the way,

when did my handwriting get so much better?

I mean, if the Crusades had been brought on by the lightning-fast rise of the Islamic

empire and a desire to keep in Christian hands the land of Jesus, then the Crusades would’ve

started in the 8th century. But early Islamic dynasties, like the Umayyads and the Abbasids,

were perfectly happy with Christians and Jews living among them, as long as they paid a

tax. And plus the Christian pilgrimage business was awesome for the Islamic Empire’s economy.

But then a new group of Muslims, the Seljuk Turks, moved into the region and they sacked

the holy cities and made it much more difficult for Christians to make their pilgrimages.

And while they quickly realized their mistake, it was already too late. The Byzantines, who’d had their

literal-asses kicked at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, felt the threat and called upon the West for help.

So the first official crusade began with a call to arms from Pope Urban II in 1095 CE.

This was partly because Urban wanted to unite Europe and he’d figured out the lesson the

rest of us learn from alien invasion movies: the best way to get people to unite is to

give them a common enemy. So Urban called on all the bickering knights and nobility

of Europe, and he saideth unto his people: “Let us go forth and help the Byzantines

because then maybe they will acknowledge my awesomeness and get rid of their stupid Not

Having Me as Pope thing, and while we are at it, let’s liberate Jerusalem!” I’m paraphrasing, by the way.

Shifting the focus to Jerusalem is really important, because the Crusades were not primarily

military operations; they were pilgrimages. Theologically, Christianity didn’t have

an idea of a holy war – like, war might be just, but fighting wasn’t something that

got you into heaven. But pilgrimage to a holy shrine could help you out on that front, and

Urban had the key insight to pitch the Crusade as a pilgrimage with a touch of warring on

the side. I do the same thing to my kid every night: I’m not feeding you dinner featuring

animal crackers. I’m feeding you animal crackers featuring a dinner. Oh, it’s time for the open letter?

An Open Letter to Animal Crackers.

But first let’s see what’s in the Secret Compartment today. Oh, it’s animal crackers.

Thanks, Stan...

Hi there, Animal Crackers, it’s me, John Green. Thanks for being delicious, but let

me throw out a crazy idea here: Maybe foods that are ALREADY DELICIOUS do not need the

added benefit of being PLEASINGLY SHAPED. I mean, why can’t I give my kid animal spinach

or animal sweet potato or even animal cooked animal? I mean, we can put a man on Mars but

we can’t make spinach shaped like elephants? What Stan? We haven’t put a man on Mars?

Stupid world, always disappointing me.

Best wishes, John Green

One last myth to dispel: The Crusades also were NOT an early example of European colonization

of the Middle East, even if they did create some European-ish kingdoms there for a while.

That's a much later, post-and-anti-colonialist view that comes, at least partially, from a Marxist reading of history.

In the case of the Crusades, it was argued, the knights who went adventuring in the Levant

were the second and third sons of wealthy nobles who, because of European inheritance

rules, had little to look forward to by staying in Europe and lots to gain – in terms of

plunder – by going to the East. Cool theory, bro, but it’s not true. First, most of the

people who responded to the call to Crusade weren’t knights at all; they were poor people.

And secondly, most of the nobles who did go crusading were lords of estates, not their wastrel kids.

But more importantly, that analysis ignores religious motivations. We’ve approached

religions as historical phenomena — thinking about how, for instance, the capricious environment

of Mesopotamia led to a capricious cadre of Mesopotamian gods. But just as the world shapes

religion, religion also shapes the world.

And some modern historians might ignore religious motivations, but medieval crusaders sure as

hell didn’t. I mean, when people came up with that idiom, they clearly thought Hell

was for sure. To the Crusaders, they were taking up arms to protect Christ and his kingdom.

And what better way to show your devotion to God than putting a cross on your sleeve, spending

5 to 6 times your annual income to outfit yourself and all your horses, and heading for the Holy Land?

So when these people cried out “God Wills It!” to explain their reasons for going,

we should do them the favor of believing them. And the results of the First Crusade seemed

to indicate that God had willed it. Following the lead of roving preachers with names like

Peter the Rabbit- Peter the Hermit? Stan, you’re always making history less cool!

Fine, following preachers like Peter the Hermit, thousands of peasants and nobles alike volunteered

for the First Crusade. It got off to kind of a rough start because pilgrims kept robbing those they encountered

on the way. Plus, there was no real leader so they were constant rivalries between nobles

about who could supply the most troops. Notable among the notables were Godfrey of Bouillon,

Bohemond of Taranto, and Raymond of Toulouse.

But despite the rivalries, and the disorganization the crusaders were remarkably — some would

say miraculously — successful. By the time they arrived in the Levant, they were fighting

not against the Seljuk Turks but against Fatimid Egyptians, who had captured the Holy Land

from the Seljuks, thereby making the Turks none too pleased with the Egyptians. At Antioch

the Crusaders reversed a seemingly hopeless situation when a peasant found a spear that

had pierced the side of Christ’s side hidden under a church, thereby raising morale enough

to win the day. And then they did the impossible: They took Jerusalem, securing it for Christendom

and famously killing a lot of people in the al-Asqa mosque.

Now the Crusaders succeeded in part because the Turkish Muslims, who were Sunnis, did

not step up to help the Egyptians, who were Shia. But that kind of complicated, intra-Islamic

rivalry gets in the way of the awesome narrative: The Christians just saw it as a miracle.

So by 1100CE European nobles held both Antioch and Jerusalem as Latin Christian kingdoms.

I say Latin to make the point that there were lots of Christians living in these cities before the

Crusaders arrived, they just weren’t Catholic -- they were Orthodox, a point that will become relevant shortly.

We’re going to skip the second Crusade because it bores me and move on to the Third Crusade

because it’s the famous one. Broadly speaking, the Third Crusade was a European response

to the emergence of a new Islamic power, neither Turkish nor Abbasid: the Egyptian (although

he was really a Kurd) Sultan al-Malik al-Nasir Salah ed-Din Yusuf, better known to the west as Saladin.

Saladin, having consolidating his power in Egypt, sought to expand by taking Damascus

and, eventually Jerusalem, which he did successfully, because he was an amazing general. And then

the loss of Jerusalem caused Pope Gregory VIII to call for a third crusade. Three of

the most important kings in Europe answered the call: Philip "cowardly schemer" the Second

of France, Richard "Lionheart" the First of England, and Frederick “I am going to drown

anticlimactically on the journey while trying to bathe in a river” Barbarossa of the not-holy,

not-roman, and not-imperial Holy Roman Empire. Both Richard and Saladin were great generals

who earned the respect of their troops.

And while from the European perspective the crusade was a failure because they didn’t

take Jerusalem, it did radically change crusading forever by making Egypt a target. Richard

understood that the best chance to take Jerusalem involved first taking Egypt, but he couldn’t

convince any crusaders to join him because Egypt had a lot less religious value to Christians than Jerusalem.

So Richard was forced to call off the Crusade early, but if he had just hung around until

Easter of 1192, he would’ve seen Saladin die. And then Richard probably could have

fulfilled all his crusading dreams, but then, you know, we wouldn’t have needed the 4th Crusade.

Although crusading continued throughout the 14th century, mostly with an emphasis on North

Africa and not the Holy Land, the 4th Crusade is the last one we’ll focus on, because

it was the crazy one. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

So a lot of people volunteered for the fourth crusade — more than 35,000 — and the generals

didn’t want to march them all the way across Anatolia, because they knew from experience

that it was A. dangerous and B. hot, so they decided to go by boat, which necessitated

the building of the largest naval fleet Europe had seen since the Roman Empire.

The Venetians built 500 ships, but then only 11,000 Crusaders actually made it down to

Venice, because, like, oh I meant to go but I had a thing come up... etc. There wasn’t

enough money to pay for those boats, so the Venetians made the Crusaders a deal: Help

us capture the rebellious city of Zara, and we’ll ferry you to Anatolia.

This was a smidge problematic, Crusading-wise, because Zara was a Christian city, but the

Crusaders agreed to help, resulting in the Pope excommunicating both them and the Venetians.

Then after the Crusaders failed to take Zara and were still broke, a would-be Byzantine

emperor named Alexius III promised the Crusaders he would pay them if they helped him out,

so the (excommunicated) Catholic Crusaders fought on behalf of the Orthodox Alexius,

who soon became emperor in Constantinople. But it took Alexius a while to come up with

the money he’d promised the Crusaders, so they were waiting around in Constantinople,

and then Alexius was suddenly dethroned by the awesomely named Mourtzouphlos, leaving

the crusaders stuck in Constantinople with no money.

Christian holy warriors couldn’t very well sack the largest city in Christendom, could

they? Well, it turns out they could and boy, did they. They took all the wealth they could

find, killed and raped Christians as they went, stole the statues of horses that now

adorn St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice, and retook exactly none of the Holy Land. Thanks, Thought Bubble.

So you’d think this disaster would discredit the whole notion of Crusading, right? No.

Instead, it legitimatized the idea that Crusading didn’t have to be about pilgrimage: that

any enemies of the Catholic Church were fair game.

Also, the fourth crusade pretty much doomed the Byzantine Empire, which never really recovered.

Constantinople, a shadow of its former self, was conquered by the Turks in 1453. So ultimately

the Crusades were a total failure at establishing Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land long term.

And with the coming of the Ottomans, the region remained solidly Muslim, as it (mostly) is today.

And the Crusades didn’t really open up lines of communication between the Christian and

Muslim worlds, because those lines of communication were already open. Plus, most historians now

agree that the Crusades didn’t bring Europe out of the Middle Ages by offering it contact

with the superior intellectual accomplishments of the Islamic world. In fact, they were a

tremendous drain on Europe’s resources.

For me, the Crusades matter because they remind us that the medieval world was fundamentally

different from ours. The men and women who took up the cross believed in the sacrality

of their work in a way that we often can’t conceive of today. And when we focus so much

on the heroic narrative or the anti-imperialist narrative, or all the political in-fighting,

we can lose sight of what the Crusades must have meant to the Crusaders. How the journey

from pilgrimage to holy war transformed their faith and their lives. And ultimately, that

exercise in empathy is the coolest thing about studying history. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week.

Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson.

Our graphics team is Thought Bubble, and the show is written by my high school history

teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. If you enjoyed today’s video don’t forget to like and

favorite it. Also, you can also follow us on Twitter or at Facebook. There are links

in the video info. Last week’s Phrase of the Week was: Ali-Frazier. You can guess at

this week’s Phrase of the Week or suggest future ones in comments where you can also

ask questions that our team of historians will endeavor to answer. Thanks for watching.

I apologize to my prudish fans for leaving both buttons unbuttoned and as we say in my

hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

Whoah! Globe, globe, globe...