Why was the First Crusade a Crusade?

Holy wars had been conducted previously to the expedition of 1095, and is it simply the case that the success of the Crusade caused it to be retrospectively refferred to as one? Had it not achieved so much would it have merely been another holy war, or sending of troops to Byzantine aid.

The Violence of the Crusades

Even though the violence of the crusades was generally accepted and rationalised, was there any christian outrage at what happened?

How could christians justify such violence when Jesus said ‘love your enemies’?

Were there many fundamental differences between the 3 crusades?

If all the crusades were sponsored by the Papacy and had the same aims to reclaim the holy land and expell the infidels, then were there any differences in motives for the crusades?

Was Urban entirely motivated by piety when he called for a crusade?

In his speech of the Council of Clermont, Urban seems passionately motivated about crusading in order to save fellow Christians from the infidels and Islam. He explains what a disaster it would be if a devout race, faithful to God were to be overcome by a race enslaved by demons. He also states that participating in the crusade would be an act of penance and would help more people to salvation. However, were religious considerations the only thing behind his speech? Is there evidence to suggest that Urban had political considerations on his mind, such as mere territorial conquest for power, or to gain more control over the Byzantine empire by using a facade of ’saving them’? There was a lot of material wealth in the east; is it possible that Urban was motivated by this?

How could convivencia exist while the Spanish were attempting to reclaim Muslim lands?

Convivencia

Was convivencia just tolerance of other religions, or interaction between jews, muslims and christians? How often was there conversion due to contact with other beliefs?

Was Charlemagne partly able to hold together an empire due to having seen the Merovingians be overthrown?

Did the history of the Carolingian overthrow of the Merovingian dynasty still echo in the mind of Charlemagne, making him less likely to make the same mistakes again, and therefore be better ruler? Or did his lack of planning for after his death doom the Empire to be divided?

Were people confident in the power of the Carolingians?

To what extent was there a sense of confidence that the Carolingian dynasty could maintain its power and empire and not collapse like the Roman empire had done? Did people really believe that things were different this time round, that the Franks were indeed the chosen people of God, and that God would ensure their lasting success? Did the Carolingian Renaissance play a role in creating such a new confidence and outlook?

The Rise of Western Christendom (2nd Edition). Peter Brown

Chapter 19 “To Rule the Christian People”: Charlemagne. This chapter offers a good overview of Charlemagne’s reign and the various reforms in Christianity, education, and language he implemented, also the reasons for them. Peter Brown also raises the question of whether these sets of changes instigated by Charlemagne were merely reforms or a Carolingian Renaissance as some scholars argue. In which he argues they were reforms.

How reliable is Bede’s Ecclisiastical History of the English People?

It is often regarded as a highly detailed source, reffered to even as our most informative account of the times, but it is worth remembering that nearly all of Bede’s information was from other sources as well. It is noted that he never travelled, and barely left his monasteries, so how much trust should we place in a source made up solely of handed down information, no doubt also containing its own bias.

Was Bede’s efforts to convert the people of England only successful after his death?

With his death came the greater spreading of his work. Was it only after his death that he was successful in his aims?

How complete was anglo-saxon conversion to christianity? Was there still pagan aspects to their christianity?

Reasons for English people to want to convert

I read that many of the English people wanted to convert to Christianity and had actually sought missionaries from the Franks before Augustine and his missionaries came. However, apart from this, a lot of the sources are from the perspective of the Church. Are there any particular reasons as to why the English chose to convert at this time? Had there not been missionaries from Ireland previously?

What can we learn from Bede’s EH relating to Paganism that is both useful, unbiased and perhaps sheds some further light on why conversion occurred?

Are there any other good accounts of a Barbarian Kings conversion other than Gregory’s?

How reliable are sources about Bede or written by him?

I don’t think that most sources concerning Bede or the whole issue of converting the ANglo Saxons are very reliable. It seems obvious that most sources would be biased and portray Bede as a hero of Catholicism. Is there any type of primary source which is relatively trustworthy?

How “Christian” was Clovis and how many parallels were there with Constantine..

… other than the similar nature of their conversion.

Was Clovis ever truly committed to Christianity or were his motivations for converting purely political?

History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours

This is a useful primary source, there are numerous translations in the ic. It is a history by a Christian Bishop covering Frankish history and gives good detail on the life of Clovis and his conversion to Catholicism and his impressions of it. It is bias, due to Gregory re-ordering the dates of some events to put Clovis in the light of a more pious convert, but nevertheless it is one of the most detailed portrtaits of a barbarian kings conversion available to us.

What was the effect of Clovis converting to Catholicism?

I’ve just read that Clovis becoming a Catholic was one of the biggest turning points for the Catholic Church? Why was it so significant? It could be that his support of Catholicism over other sects like Donatism or Arianism made the Empire united and established the Catholic Church as having the highest spritual authority, meaning they could dictate definitions of heresy etc.

Emperor Julian and education

I read that Julian perceived the condition of the empire to be a primary problem of his reign, a major cause of which was education, hence he had a strong policy on education as he believed that education would play a significant role in the rise of paganism and the decline of Christianity. However, would education not only affect the young aristocrats? They maybe influential secular/religious rulers in the future, but only affects a minority in the short term.

Was Constantine’s vision/dream the only cause of his conversion, or is there evidence prior to it to suggest he would convert?

Is there anything in Constantine’s upbringing/early life that might suggest that he had alternative religious influences or that he might convert? Should we place more importance on his recognition of the God Sol Invictus which may have brought Constantine round to the idea of monotheism?

What/who was responsible for Julian’s paganism?

If Christianity was the new ‘trend’ of religion, and Julian’s upbringing was closely monitored and isolated from most people, how did Julian pick up paganism? I read that he was placed under the care of Eusebius, who was a Christian and (as he claims) very close to Constantine. With this sort of influence on Julian’s young mind, how did he end up being a dedicated pagan?

Which religion did the Roman people want?

Despite most historical courses inherently following the main characters (as they are the ones who were written about) does any one know what the general feeling amongst Roman lay people was? It seems to me that large scale changes in religion are almost simply to keep those in power happy and feeling morally justified. To an innocent Roman farmer it whos world does not stretch far beyond his fields it would seem pagan gods of rivers and streams would be a more appealing religion than an overarching Christian god imposing worries about his eternal soul.

Julian Psychological state?

I read a short article mentioning Julian’s psychological state and how he was known to be a little unbalanced and I wondered if there was any significance in it, or if there was any impact of his psychological state upon his policy making especially in relation to paganism.

Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus

Good account of a soldiers life (Ammianus) which contains details of the time he served under Julian in Gaul and Persia. It is pro-Julian in sentiment, but gives a good impression of why Julian was popular with soldiers for his effective command and handling of men. Goes on to detail his reign as Emporer and actions taken during this time. Number 871.9 in the information commons, only books 14-26 survive, so dont spend ages looking for the first ones.

Julian’s chances of Success

How could Julian ever have expected to unite the Empire under such a fragmented and varied relgion as paganism? All the different gods, approaches and personal preferences on rituals/practices stacked the odds heavily against him. So why did he attempt it? Was he aware of the challenges?

The Later Roman Empire A.D. 284-430. By Averil Cameron.

Chapter 6 covers the reign of Julian ^AD 361-^AD 363 who was the only pagan Emperor of the fourth century. This chapter discusses Julian’s success as a general, his attempt to revive the pagan religion in the Roman Empire, the banning of Christians from teaching in ^AD 362, and his final demise in battle against the Persian army.

Were Julian’s attempts to change religion in the Roman Empire unrealistic?

Julian, in his short reign, tried to change the way in which his people viewed religion. But were his attempts to do so going to fail even before he started?

Was becoming part of the ‘Establishment’ a difficult transition for the Church?

I hope this doesn’t seem like a stupid question, as the end of persecutions and access to much greater numbers of potential converts would suggest that Constantine’s conversion was of great benefit to Christianity. However, the character of the early Church was forged by its existence in a hostile society, and I wondered if it lost some of its strength once it became part of mainstream Roman culture? With people converting for career advancement, and bishops gaining more secular power, were the original Christian messages watered down?

Did Constantine think that Sol Invictus was the Christian God he worshipped?

-No legal proceedings Sundays

-25th December - dedication day of the temple of Sol Invictus

The God Constantine was praying to initially was Sol Invictus - Had Sol merely shown C. the right way to worship him - through Christianity?

Heterodoxy

Was it ever the case that people adopted Christianity whilst carrying on certain traditional pagan practices, or merged new beliefs with their old way of life rather than the converted abandoning previous traditions entirely?

To what extent did Christianity initially change as a result of Constantine’s conversion?

In the same way that previous religions had simply been added to the Roman Pantheon was the same true of Christianity initially? I’m aware that Pagan beliefs continued to exist for some time, but did Christianity become watered down so that it was easier to accept?

What was Constantine’s Christianity like?

I read an article saying how it was undeniable that Constantine did convert, but the only question was which type of Christianity did he pursue? It stated Christianity of the time was a very loose organisation, without particularly defined universal doctrine. I think its too easy to look at ‘Christianity’ in a uniformitarian way, and that we are talking about a religion similar to that which is practiced in the world today, when in reality it was probably quite different.

Did Constantine only ‘convert’ to Christianity because it was the only religion that could save him from his sins?

It could be argued that Constantine only converted to Christianity because it was the only religion that could save him from his sins - a quality of the religion that paganism could not offer him. Anybody else think this might be the case?

Was Constantine still pagan in practice?

I’ve just read an article which claims that Constantine still firmly worshipped Sol Invictus and believed in this god as much as the Christian God. If he was maintaining this belief then he was still practising paganism in reality and undermining the fundamental christian doctrine of exclusivity through pluralism. Is there much evidence to show he was worshipping other gods and how the church responded to this?

Constantine and the impact of Christianity

I found Constantine’s view towards the Church confusing to some extent; I got the impression from the lecture that (in simple terms) while on the one hand he sides against the Donatists’ schism and attempts to persectue them, on the other hand, he perceived the divisions of the Christological heresies and the Arians over doctrinal issues as a trivial issue and for the bishops to decide, hence he presided over the Council of Nicene in 325 to reach a compromise?

The Later Roman Empire A.D. 284-430. By Averil Cameron.

The fourth chapter of this book concentrates on the reign of Constantine as Emperor 306- 337AD discussing Constantine’s re-order of the senates, his conversion to Christianity, the developing relations between the Emperor and the church and the establishment of Jerusalem and the Holy Land as places of Christian pilgrimage. This theme continues in chapter five and demonstrates the affect Constantine’s conversion to Christianity had on the church and state relationship. Many points are discussed in this chapter such as: the growing wealth of the church and bishops, their changing role of becoming a more central figure in society, increasing persecution of Pagans and Jews at the hands of Christians and the growing trend for Christians to undertake self denial and asceticism.

The Classical World, Robin Lane Fox

The Classical World by Robin Lane Fox, esp chapters 48, 52, and 53 deals with and gives a brief background of Christianity and Roman Rule, and the roots of Christianity. It also shows an insight into what Pliny the Younger was like and his background, and by doing this it contrasts some Roman beliefs in comparison to some early Christian beliefs.

Fox, R.L., The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome (London, 2006)

How much did voluntary martyrdom by some Christians play a part in the continuation of the Christian persecutions?

From general reading I got the impression Christians were attacked and persecuted when pagans actually reported them to the authorities, because of their different beliefs and unwillingness to participate in the accepted norms and practices of the populace. However, in a piece by G.E.M. de ste. Croix, ‘Why were the early Christians persecuted’ in Past and Present (1963), an interesting point is raised that Christians actually voluntarily admitted to being a Christian in order to be punished and become a martyr.

Is there a stereotype that Christians were widely persecuted, and is this exaggerated?

Before looking at this course I feel there was a sterotype that Christians were widely persecuted with the view that they were ‘thrown to the lions’ and faced other such punishments. Is this a heavily exaggerated view of things? To what extent were Christians actually punished?

Why would Romans want to be Christians?

Why in a very tolerant and accepting society would people actively decide to join a new exclusive religion which was against some of the core values Rome stood for? A religion which they would also be persecuted for belonging to, so why did Christianity become as popular as it was?

Persecution

‘Constantine and the Conversion of Europe’, by A.H.M Jones and first published in 1948, offers a detailed yet easy to understand examination of several topics pertinent to the course. Events are often explained in an anecdotal, story-like manner, and supported by the quoting of various primary sources. Jones does not over-complicate issues, making the book read well. Relevant topics include descriptions of paganism, including details of the specific cults and customs which it consisted of (for example, there was significant Egyptian influence), the persecution of Christians, the conversion of Constantine and finally an interesting conclusion on ‘Constantine’s place in history.’

In addition to formal persecution of Christians by those in authority, were Christians also subject to hostility or violence from ‘normal’ pagan members of society? Did people know who the Christians were, and were they made into outcasts by the rest of the population? Or was the idea of punishing Christians more just a desire of those in power?

Persecution

It seems so strange to me how christians were so joyous they were about to die as martyrs. Not even Jesus was happy to die. He even was tempted to run away rather than die according to the Bible. I guess one did get the status of a martyr but was that really worth it? Christians obviously thought it was and it seems that they tried to deliberately get themselves executed which pushed the Roman persecution on

Were the Christians persecuted because they were seen as a threat to society?

When i was reviewing the lecture notes I began to wonder whether the persecution of Christians had a hidden political agenda, due to some communities using Christians as ’scapegoats’ when there was a crisis. Christians seeking martydom would have also disturbed pagan communities within the empire or did the persecution of Christians depend on the ruling authorities beliefs at the time?

Did Romans actually believe in Christianity?

It seems strange that a civillisation that was built on a ‘pagan’ religion and believed so much in it would accept this new monotheic religion so willingly. Surely it is more probable that the people merely went along with the beliefs of the emperor in order to gain favour rather than actually accepted this new unknown religion?

Christianity and paganism

Were Christians or the essentials of the Christian faith ever an actual threat to law and order in the Roman empire?