this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
27 points (100.0% liked)

History

382 readers
2 users here now

This is the general history subcom. Anything relating to history is welcome here. Doesn't have to be Marxist, though it certainly can be. So join in on the discussion and let's learn more.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Above all, the Crusade was an outlet for the brutal imperialism inherent in the feudal order. Much of 11th century Europe was divided into landed estates (or “fiefs”) designed to support a heavy cavalryman, providing enough to pay for his armour, equipment, horses, and the luxury and trappings of a knight.

In return for their estates, knights owed allegiance to the great lords who owned the land. These lords in turn had obligations to the rulers of the feudal states. Norman feudalism was an extreme example. The Normans were descended from 10th century Viking settlers in Normandy. The native peasantry was heavily exploited to maintain a large force of heavy cavalry.

But to avoid fiefs being subdivided and becoming non-viable, the rule of primogeniture prevailed, whereby the eldest son inherited the entire estate. Younger sons therefore had to fight to keep their place in the world.

Denied an inheritance, they had to survive through mercenary service or by winning for themselves a new fiefdom. This was true of knights, nobles and princes — all ranks of the feudal aristocracy produced younger sons prepared to maintain rank through military force.

Opportunities were numerous. Civil wars were frequent. Competition for land and power kept the feudal aristocracy divided. The rulers of feudal states tried to control and channel these energies in wars of conquest — exporting the violence inherent in the system.

Bloody logic

The dynamic of feudal imperialism was the drive to find booty and fiefdoms for a warrior caste otherwise liable to tear itself apart in fratricidal slaughter. It was this bloody logic that powered the Crusades.

“This land you inhabit is overcrowded by your numbers,” explained the pope. “This is why you devour and fight one another, make war and even kill one another. Let all dissensions be settled. Take the road to the Holy Sepulchre. Rescue that land from a dreadful race and rule over it yourselves.”

The war was sustained by lies. The Holy Land was supposedly desecrated with the blood of Christian pilgrims. Muslims were accused of revolting atrocities. Racist stereotypes appeared in contemporary art. In fact, Muslims, Jews and Christians had lived side by side in the Holy Land for centuries, and Jerusalem welcomed pilgrims from all three faiths. The truth was that the Crusades were an exercise in feudal violence and pillage. Most Crusaders returned home after the war. But they left behind four Crusader states — Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem — and these, each guarded by just a few thousand men, had to be brutal to survive.

Living on stolen land and surrounded by potential enemies, the Crusaders were too few ever to feel safe. They needed wealth to recruit and maintain soldiers, and they grabbed it any way they could — attacking desert caravans, raiding their neighbours, and screwing the local peasantry. They were true robber barons.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NikkiB@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago (6 children)

It pays to remind people that at the time of the crusades, Europe was a cesspit of ignorance and barbarism, while the people of West Asia and North Africa developed astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, literature, architecture, and philosophy. The crusades and the “reconquista” made the renaissance enlightenment possible as it allowed them to “rediscover” high culture and science from the populations which they brutalized.

[–] materialanalysis1938@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It’s actually stunning how impactful the crusades were in setting the foundation for the modern global structure.

In addition to the points you’ve outlined, it also instilled current cultures of imperialism and Islamophobia all over the West.

[–] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)
[–] materialanalysis1938@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mussolini saw himself and the Italians as the heir apparent to the Roman Empire and the great civilization that it was. Except the Roman Empire (Eastern) continued for another 1000 years after the collapse of the Western half. And this Eastern Roman Empire was pillaged and crushed during the crusades in part by Italians.

Amazing what cognitive dissonance a mythological and idealistic understanding of history can cause

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My favorite thing is that the Russian Empire had some tenuous claim to the title of the Roman Empire (Third Rome), and was defeated when the Czars fell.

So to claim, then, that communism caused the fall of the Roman Empire wouldn't be entirely bullshit

[–] huf@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

but it didnt. finland was part of the tzardom and communism didnt happen there, so finland still carries that claim to this day. helsinki is the fourth rome or whatever

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)