PAPAL ELECTION BY THE CARDINALS

The death of Henry III, which left the Empire in weak hands, gave the Papacy a chance to escape the control of the secular power. In 1059 A.D. a church council held at the Lateran Palace decreed that henceforth the right of choosing the supreme pontiff should belong exclusively to the cardinals, who represented the clergy of Rome. This arrangement has tended to prevent any interference with the election of popes, either by the Roman people or by foreign sovereigns.

FEUDALIZING OF THE CHURCH

Now that the Papacy had become independent, it began to deal with a grave problem which affected the Church at large. According to ecclesiastical rule bishops ought to be chosen by the clergy of their diocese and abbots of by their monks. With the growth of feudalism, however, many of these high dignitaries had become vassals, holding their lands as fiefs of princes, kings, and emperors, and owing the usual feudal dues. Their lords expected them to perform the ceremony of homage, [34] before "investing" them with the lands attached to the bishopric or monastery. One can readily see that in practice the lords really chose the bishops and abbots, since they could always refuse to "invest" those who were displeasing to them.

LAY INVESTITURE FROM THE CHURCH STANDPOINT

To the reformers in the Church lay investiture appeared intolerable. How could the Church keep itself unspotted from the world when its highest officers were chosen by laymen and were compelled to perform unpriestly duties? In the act of investiture the reformers also saw the sin of simony [35]—the sale of sacred powers—because there was such a temptation before the candidate for a bishopric or abbacy to buy the position with promises or with money.

LAY INVESTITURE AS VIEWED BY THE SECULAR AUTHORITY

The lords, on the other hand, believed that as long as bishops and abbots held vast estates on feudal tenure they should continue to perform the obligations of vassalage. To forbid lay investiture was to deprive the lords of all control over Church dignitaries. The real difficulty of the situation existed, of course, in the fact that the bishops and abbots were both spiritual officers and temporal rulers, were servants of both the Church and the State. They found it very difficult to serve two masters.

PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY VII, 1073-1085 A.D.

In 1073 A.D. there came to the throne of St. Peter one of the most remarkable of the popes. This was Hildebrand, who, on becoming pope, took the name of Gregory VII. Of obscure Italian birth, he received his education in a Benedictine monastery at Rome and rose rapidly to a position of great influence in papal affairs. He is described as a small man, ungainly in appearance and with a weak voice, but energetic, forceful, and of imperious will.

GREGORY'S AIMS

Gregory devoted all his talents to the advancement of the Papacy. A contemporary document, [36] which may have been of Gregory's own composition and at any rate expresses his ideas, contains the following statements: "The Roman pontiff alone is properly called universal. He alone may depose bishops and restore them to office. He is the only person whose feet are kissed by all princes. He may depose emperors. He may be judged by no one. He may absolve from their allegiance the subjects of the wicked. The Roman Church never has erred, and never can err, as the Scriptures testify." Gregory did not originate these doctrines, but he was the first pope who ventured to make a practical application of them.

DECREE AGAINST LAY INVESTITURE, 1075 A.D.

Two years after Gregory became pope he issued a decree against lay investiture. It declared that no emperor, king, duke, marquis, count, or any other lay person should presume to grant investiture, under pain of excommunication. This decree was a general one, applying to all states of western Europe, but circumstances were such that it mainly affected Germany.

HENRY IV AND GREGORY VII

Henry IV, the ruler of Germany at this time, did not refuse the papal challenge. He wrote a famous letter to Gregory, calling him "no pope but false monk," telling him Christ had never called him to the priesthood, and bidding him "come down;" "come down" from St. Peter's throne. Gregory, in reply, deposed Henry as emperor, excommunicated him, and freed his subjects from their allegiance.

CANOSSA, 1077 A.D.

This severe sentence made a profound impression in Germany. Henry's adherents fell away, and it seemed probable that the German nobles would elect another ruler in his stead. Henry then decided on abject submission. He hastened across the Alps and found the pope at the castle of Canossa, on the northern slopes of the Apennines. It was January, and the snow lay deep on the ground. For three days the emperor stood shivering outside the castle gate, barefoot and clad in a coarse woolen shirt, the garb of a penitent. At last, upon the entreaties of the Countess Matilda of Tuscany, Gregory admitted Henry and granted absolution. It was a strange and moving spectacle, one which well expressed the tremendous power which the Church in the Middle Ages exercised over the minds of men.



CONCORDAT OF WORMS, 1122 A.D.

The dramatic scene at Canossa did not end the investiture conflict. It dragged on for half a century, being continued after Gregory's death by the popes who succeeded him. At last in 1122 A.D. the opposing parties agreed to what is known as the Concordat of Worms, from the old German city where it was signed.

TERMS OF THE CONCORDAT

The concordat drew a distinction between spiritual and lay investiture. The emperor renounced investiture by the ring and crosier—the emblems of spiritual authority—and permitted bishops and abbots to be elected by the clergy and confirmed in office by the pope. On the other hand the pope recognized the emperor's right to be present at all elections and to invest bishops and abbots by the scepter for whatever lands they held within his domains. This reasonable compromise worked well for a time. But it was a truce, not a peace. It did not settle the more fundamental issue, whether the Papacy or the Holy Roman Empire should be supreme.

167. POPES AND EMPERORS, 1122-1273 A.D.

FREDERICK I, EMPEROR, 1152-1190

Thirty years after the signing of the Concordat of Worms the emperor Frederick I, called Barbarossa from his red beard, succeeded to the throne. Frederick, the second emperor, of the Hohenstaufen dynasty [37] was capable, imaginative, and ambitious. He took Charlemagne and Otto the Great as his models and aspired like them to rule Christian Europe and the Church. His reign is the story of many attempts, ending at length in failure, to unite all Italy into a single state under German sway.

FREDERICK AND THE PAPACY

Frederick's Italian policy brought him at once into conflict with two powerful enemies. The popes, who feared that his success would imperil the independence of the Papacy, opposed him at every step. The great cities of northern Italy, which were also threatened by Frederick's soaring schemes, united in the Lombard League to defend their freedom. The popes gave the league their support, and in 1176 A.D. Frederick was badly beaten at the battle of Legnano. The haughty emperor confessed himself conquered, and sought reconciliation with the pope, Alexander III. In the presence of a vast throng assembled before St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice, Frederick knelt before the pope and humbly kissed his feet. Just a century had passed since the humiliation of Henry IV at Canossa.

PONTIFICATE OF INNOCENT III, 1198-1216 A.D.

The Papacy reached the height of its power under Innocent III. The eighteen years of his pontificate were one long effort, for the most part successful, to make the pope the arbiter of Europe. Innocent announced the claims of the Papacy in the most uncompromising manner. "As the moon," he declared, "receives its light from the sun, and is inferior to the sun, so do kings receive all their glory and dignity from the Holy See." This meant, according to Innocent, that the pope has the right to interfere in all secular matters and in the quarrels of rulers. "God," he continued, "has set the Prince of the Apostles over kings and kingdoms, with a mission to tear up, plant, destroy, scatter, and rebuild."

INNOCENT AND KING PHILIP OF FRANCE

That Innocent's claims were not idle boasts is shown by what he accomplished. When Philip Augustus, king of France, divorced his wife and made another marriage, Innocent declared the divorce void and ordered him to take back his discarded queen. Philip refused, and Innocent, through his legate, put France under an interdict. From that hour all religious rites ceased. The church doors were barred; the church bells were silent, the sick died unshriven, the dead lay unburied. Philip, deserted by his retainers, was compelled to submit.

INNOCENT AND KING JOHN OF ENGLAND

On another occasion Innocent ordered John, the English king, to accept as archbishop of Canterbury a man of his own choosing. When John declared that he would never allow the pope's appointee to set foot on English soil, Innocent replied by excommunicating him and laying his kingdom under an interdict. John also had to yield and went so far as to surrender England and Ireland to the pope, receiving them back again as fiefs, for which he promised to pay a yearly rent. This tribute money was actually paid, though irregularly, for about a century and a half.

FREDERICK II, EMPEROR, 1212-1250 A.D.

Innocent further exhibited his power by elevating to the imperial throne Frederick II, grandson of Frederick Barbarossa. The young man, after Innocent's death, proved to be a most determined opponent of the Papacy. He passed much of his long reign in Italy, warring vainly against the popes and the Lombard cities. Frederick died in 1250 A.D., and with him the Holy Roman Empire really ceased to exist. [38] None of the succeeding holders of the imperial title exercised any authority outside of Germany.

INTERREGNUM, 1254-1273 A.D.

The death of Frederick II's son in 1254 A.D. ended the Hohenstaufen dynasty. There now ensued what is called the Interregnum, a period of nineteen years, during which Germany was without a ruler. At length the pope sent word to the German electors that if they did not choose an emperor, he would himself do so. The electors then chose Rudolf of Hapsburg [39] (1273 A.D.). Rudolf gained papal support by resigning all claims on Italy, but recompensed himself through the conquest of Austria. [40] Ever since this time the Hapsburg dynasty has filled the Austrian throne.

OUTCOME OF THE CONFLICT

The conflict between popes and emperors was now ended. Its results were momentous. Germany, so long neglected by its rightful rulers, who pursued the will-o'-the-wisp in Italy, broke up into a mass of duchies, counties, archbishoprics, and free cities. The map of the country at this time shows how numerous were these small feudal states. They did not combine into a strong government till the nineteenth century. [41] Italy likewise remained disunited and lacked even a common monarch. The real victor was the Papacy, which had crushed the Empire and had prevented the union of Italy and Germany.



168. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH

THE CHURCH AND WARFARE

Medieval society, we have now learned, owed much to the Church, both as a teacher of religion and morals and as an agency of government. It remains to ask what was the attitude of the Church toward the great social problems of the Middle Ages. In regard to warfare, the prevalence of which formed one of the worst evils of the time, the Church, in general, cast its influence on the side of peace. It deserves credit for establishing the Peace and the Truce of God and for many efforts to heal strife between princes and nobles. Yet, as will be shown, the Church did not carry the advocacy of peace so far as to condemn warfare against heretics and infidels. Christians believed that it was a religious duty to exterminate these enemies of God.

THE CHURCH AND CHARITY

The Church was distinguished for charitable work. The clergy received large sums for distribution to the needy. From the doors of the monasteries, the poor, the sick, and the infirm of every sort were never turned away. Medieval charity, however, was very often injudicious. The problem of removing the causes of poverty seems never to have been raised; and the indiscriminate giving multiplied, rather than reduced, the number of beggars.

THE CHURCH AND SLAVERY AND SERFDOM

Neither slavery nor serfdom, into which slavery gradually passed, [42] was ever pronounced unlawful by pope or Church council. The Church condemned slavery only when it was the servitude of a Christian in bondage to a Jew or an infidel. Abbots, bishops, and popes possessed slaves and serfs. The serfs of some wealthy monasteries were counted by thousands. The Church, however, encouraged the freeing of bondmen as a meritorious act and always preached the duty of kindness and forbearance toward them.

DEMOCRACY OF THE CHURCH

The Church also helped to promote the cause of human freedom by insisting on the natural equality of all men in the sight of God. "The Creator," wrote one of the popes, "distributes his gifts without regard to social classes. In his eyes there are neither nobles nor serfs." It was not necessary to be of noble birth to become a bishop, a cardinal, or a pope. Even serfs succeeded to the chair of St. Peter. Naturally enough, the Church attracted the keenest minds of the age, a fact which largely explains the influence exerted by the clergy.

THE CLERGY AS THE ONLY EDUCATED CLASS

The influence of the clergy in medieval Europe was also due to the fact that they were almost the only persons of education. Few except churchmen were able to read or write. So generally was this the case that an offender could prove himself a clergyman, thus securing "benefit of clergy," [43] if he showed his ability to read a single line. It is interesting, also, to note that the word "clerk," which comes from the Latin clericus, was originally limited to churchmen, since they alone could keep accounts, write letters, and perform other secretarial duties.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY

It is clear that priests and monks had much importance quite aside from their religious duties. They controlled the schools, wrote the books, framed the laws, and, in general, acted as leaders and molders of public opinion. A most conspicuous instance of the authority wielded by them is seen in the crusades. These holy wars of Christendom against Islam must now be considered.

STUDIES

1. Explain the following terms: abbot; prior; archbishop; parish; diocese; regular clergy; secular clergy; friar; excommunication; simony; interdict; sacrament; "benefit of clergy"; right of "sanctuary"; crosier; miter; tiara; papal indulgence; bull; dispensation; tithes; and "Peter's Pence."

2. Mention some respects in which the Roman Church in the Middle Ages differed from any religious society of the present day.

3. "Medieval Europe was a camp with a church in the background." Comment on this statement.

4. Explain the statement that "the Church, throughout the Middle Ages, was a government as well as an ecclesiastical organization."

5. Distinguish between the faith of the Church, the organization of the Church, and the Church as a force in history.

6. How did the belief in Purgatory strengthen the hold of the Church upon men's minds?

7. Name several historic characters who have been made saints.

8. Why has the Roman Church always refused to sanction divorce?

9. Compare the social effects of excommunication with those of a modern "boycott."

10. What reasons have led the Church to insist upon celibacy of the clergy?

11. Name four famous monks and four famous monasteries.

12. Could monks enter the secular clergy and thus become parish priests and bishops?

13. Mention two famous popes who had been monks.

14. What justification was found in the New Testament (Matthew, x 8-10) for the organization of the orders of friars?

15. How did the Franciscans and Dominicans supplement each other's work?

16. "The monks and the friars were the militia of the Church." Comment on this statement.

17. Who is the present Pope? When and by whom was he elected? In what city does he reside? What is his residence called?

18. Why has the medieval Papacy been called the "ghost" of the Roman Empire?

19. In what sense is it true that the Holy Roman Empire was "neither holy nor Roman, nor an empire"?

FOOTNOTES

[1] Webster, Readings in Medieval and Modern History, chapter x, "Monastic Life in the Twelfth Century"; chapter xi, "St. Francis and the Franciscans."

[2] In case of necessity baptism might be performed by any lay person of adult years and sound mind.

[3] This doctrine is known as transubstantiation. In the Roman Church, as has been noted (page 363), wine is not administered to the laity.

[4] Hence the term "Apostolical Succession."

[5] Latin sanctus, "holy."

[6] See page 234.

[7] See page 431.

[8] See pages 407, 418.

[9] The belief in Purgatory is not held by Protestants or by members of the Greek Church.

[10] The so-called "canon law." See page 568.

[11] See page 420.

[12] For two instances of the use of excommunication see pages 459 and 461.

[13] For two instances of this sort see page 461.

[14] Latin saeculum, used in the sense of "the world."

[15] Latin regula, a "rule", referring to the rule or constitution of a monastic order.

[16] See page 343.

[17] The tithe was a tenth part of the yearly income from land, stock, and personal industry.

[18] See illustration, page 447.

[19] Latin cathedra.

[20] For the architecture of a medieval cathedral see pages 562-565.

[21] See page 474.

[22] See page 352.

[23] Latin frater, "brother."

[24] Latin mendicare, "to beg."

[25] In England the Franciscans, from the color of their robes, were called Gray Friars, the Dominicans, Black Friars.

[26] Latin papa, "father."

[27] See the illustration, page 348.

[28] So called from the lead seal (Latin bulla) attached to papal documents.

[29] Latin legatus, "deputy."

[30] Latin cardinalus, "principal."

[31] See page 311.

[32] See the plate facing page 591.

[33] See page 317.

[34] See page 418.

[35] A name derived from Simon Magus, who offered money to the Apostle Peter for the power to confer the Holy Spirit. See Acts, viii, 18-20.

[36] The so-called Dictatus papae.

[37] The name of this German family comes from that of their castle in southwestern Swabia.

[38] It survived in name until 1806 A.D., when the Austrian ruler, Francis II, laid down the imperial crown and the venerable title of "Holy Roman Emperor."

[39] Hapsburg as the name of a castle in northern Switzerland.

[40] See page 522.

[41] The modern German Empire dates from 1871 A.D.

[42] See pages 436-437.

[43] See page 444.



CHAPTER XX

THE OCCIDENT AGAINST THE ORIENT; THE CRUSADES, 1095-1291 A.D. [1]

169. CAUSES OF THE CRUSADES

PLACE OF THE CRUSADES IN HISTORY

The series of military expeditions, undertaken by the Christians of Europe for the purpose of recovering the Holy Land from the Moslems, have received the name of crusades. In their widest aspect the crusades may be regarded as a renewal of the age-long contest between East and West, in which the struggle of Greeks and Persians and of Romans and Carthaginians formed the earlier episodes. The contest assumed a new character when Europe had become Christian and Asia Mohammedan. It was not only two contrasting types of civilization but also two rival world religions which in the eighth century faced each other under the walls of Constantinople and on the battlefield of Tours. Now, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, they were to meet again.

NUMBER OF THE CRUSADES

Seven or eight chief crusades are usually enumerated. To number them, however, obscures the fact that for nearly two hundred years Europe and Asia were engaged in almost constant warfare. Throughout this period there was a continuous movement of crusaders to and from the Moslem possessions in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.

PILGRIMAGES TO THE HOLY LAND

The crusades were first and foremost a spiritual enterprise. They sprang from the pilgrimages which Christians had long been accustomed to make to the scenes of Christ's life on earth. Men considered it a wonderful privilege to see the cave in which He was born, to kiss the spot where He died, and to kneel in prayer at His tomb. The eleventh century saw an increased zeal for pilgrimages, and from this time travelers to the Holy Land were very numerous. For greater security they often joined themselves in companies and marched under arms. It needed little to transform such pilgrims into crusaders.



ABUSE OF PILGRIMS BY THE TURKS

The Arab conquest of the Holy Land had not interrupted the stream of pilgrims, for the early caliphs were more tolerant of unbelievers than Christian emperors of heretics. But after the coming of the Seljuk Turks into the East, pilgrimages became more difficult and dangerous. The Turks were a ruder people than the Arabs whom they displaced, and in their fanatic zeal for Islam were not inclined to treat the Christians with consideration. Many tales floated back to Europe of the outrages committed on the pilgrims and on the sacred shrines venerated by all Christendom. Such stories, which lost nothing in the telling, aroused a storm of indignation throughout Europe and awakened the desire to rescue the Holy Land from the grasp of the "infidel."

THE CRUSADES AND THE UPPER CLASSES

But the crusades were not simply an expression of the simple faith of the Middle Ages. Something more than religious enthusiasm sent an unending procession of crusaders along the highways of Europe and over the trackless wastes of Asia Minor to Jerusalem. The crusades, in fact, appealed strongly to the warlike instincts of the feudal nobles. They saw in an expedition against the East an unequaled opportunity for acquiring fame, riches, lands, and power. The Normans were especially stirred by the prospect of adventure and plunder which the crusading movement opened up. By the end of the eleventh century they had established themselves in southern Italy and Sicily, from which they now looked across the Mediterranean for further lands to conquer. [2] Norman knights formed a very large element in several of the crusaders' armies.

THE LOWER CLASSES AND THE CRUSADES

The crusades also attracted the lower classes. So great was the misery of the common people in medieval Europe that for them it seemed not a hardship, but rather a relief, to leave their homes in order to better themselves abroad. Famine and pestilence, poverty and oppression, drove them to emigrate hopefully to the golden East.

PRIVILEGES OF CRUSADERS

The Church, in order to foster the crusades, promised both religious and secular benefits to those who took part in them. A warrior of the Cross was to enjoy forgiveness of all his past sins. If he died fighting for the faith, he was assured of an immediate entrance to the joys of Paradise. The Church also freed him from paying interest on his debts and threatened with excommunication anyone who molested his wife, his children, or his property.

170. FIRST CRUSADE, 1095-1099 A.D.

OCCASION OF THE FIRST CRUSADE

The signal for the First Crusade was given by the conquests of the Seljuk Turks. [3] These barbarians, at first the mercenaries and then the masters of the Abbasid caliphs, infused fresh energy into Islam. They began a new era of Mohammedan expansion by winning almost the whole of Asia Minor from the Roman Empire in the East. One of their leaders established himself at Nicaea, the scene of the first Church Council, [4] and founded the sultanate of Rum (Rome).

APPEAL OF EMPEROR TO POPE

The presence of the Turks so close to Constantinople was a standing menace to all Europe. The able emperor, Alexius I, on succeeding to the throne toward the close of the eleventh century, took steps to expel the invaders. He could not draw on the hardy tribes of Asia Minor for the soldiers he needed, but with reinforcements from the West he hoped to recover the lost provinces of the empire. Accordingly, in 1095 A.D., Alexius sent an embassy to Pope Urban II, the successor of Gregory VII, requesting aid. The fact that the emperor appealed to the pope, rather than to any king, shows what a high place the Papacy then held in the affairs of Europe.

COUNCIL OF CLERMONT, 1095 A.D.

To the appeal of Alexius, Urban lent a willing ear. He summoned a great council of clergy and nobles to meet at Clermont in France. Here, in an address which, measured by its results, was the most momentous recorded in history, Pope Urban preached the First Crusade. He said little about the dangers which threatened the Roman Empire in the East from the Turks, but dwelt chiefly on the wretched condition of the Holy Land, with its churches polluted by unbelievers and its Christian inhabitants tortured and enslaved. Then, turning to the proud knights who stood by, Urban called upon them to abandon their wicked practice of private warfare and take up arms, instead, against the infidel. "Christ Himself," he cried, "will be your leader, when, like the Israelites of old, you fight for Jerusalem.... Start upon the way to the Holy Sepulcher; wrench the land from the accursed race, and subdue it yourselves. Thus shall you spoil your foes of their wealth and return home victorious, or, purpled with your own blood, receive an everlasting reward."

"GOD WILLS IT!"

Urban's trumpet call to action met an instant response. From the assembled host there went up, as it were, a single shout: "God wills it! God wills it!" "It is, in truth, His will," answered Urban, "and let these words be your war cry when you unsheath your swords against the enemy." Then man after man pressed forward to receive the badge of a crusader, a cross of red cloth. [5] It was to be worn on the breast, when the crusader went forth, and on the back, when he returned.

PRELUDE TO THE FIRST CRUSADE

The months which followed the Council of Clermont were marked by an epidemic of religious excitement in western Europe. Popular preachers everywhere took up the cry "God wills it!" and urged their hearers to start for Jerusalem. A monk named Peter the Hermit aroused large parts of France with his passionate eloquence, as he rode from town to town, carrying a huge cross before him and preaching to vast crowds. Without waiting for the main body of nobles, which was to assemble at Constantinople in the summer of 1096 A.D., a horde of poor men, women, and children set out, unorganized and almost unarmed, on the road to the Holy Land. One of these crusading bands, led by Peter the Hermit, managed to reach Constantinople, after suffering terrible hardships. The emperor Alexius sent his ragged allies as quickly as possible to Asia Minor, where most of them were slaughtered by the Turks.

THE MAIN CRUSADE

Meanwhile real armies were gathering in the West. Recruits came in greater numbers from France than from any other country, a circumstance which resulted in the crusaders being generally called "Franks" by their Moslem foes. They had no single commander, but each contingent set out for Constantinople by its own route and at its own time. [6]

LEADERS OF THE CRUSADE

The crusaders included among their leaders some of the most distinguished representatives of European knighthood. Count Raymond of Toulouse headed a band of volunteers from Provence in southern France. Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin commanded a force of French and Germans from the Rhinelands. Normandy sent Robert, William the Conqueror's eldest son. The Normans from Italy and Sicily were led by Bohemond, a son of Robert Guiscard, [7] and his nephew Tancred.

THE CRUSADERS IN ASIA MINOR AND SYRIA

Though the crusaders probably did not number more than fifty thousand fighting men, the disunion which prevailed among the Turks favored the success of their enterprise. With some assistance from the eastern emperor they captured Nicaea, overran Asia Minor, and at length reached Antioch, the key to northern Syria. The city fell after a siege of seven months, but the crusaders were scarcely within the walls before they found themselves besieged by a large Turkish army. The crusaders were now in a desperate plight: famine wasted their ranks; many soldiers deserted; and Alexius disappointed all hope of rescue. But the news of the discovery in an Antioch church of the Holy Lance which had pierced the Savior's side restored their drooping spirits. The whole army issued forth from the city, bearing the relic as a standard, and drove the Turks in headlong flight. This victory opened the road to Jerusalem.



CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM, 1099 A.D.

Reduced now to perhaps one-fourth of their original numbers, the crusaders advanced slowly to the city which formed the goal of all their efforts. Before attacking it they marched barefoot in religious procession around the walls, with Peter the Hermit at their head. Then came the grand assault. Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred were among the first to mount the ramparts. Once inside the city, the crusaders massacred their enemies without mercy. Afterwards, we are told, they went "rejoicing, nay for excess of joy weeping, to the tomb of our Savior to adore and give thanks."

171. CRUSADERS' STATES IN SYRIA

LATIN KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM

After the capture of Jerusalem the crusaders met to elect a king. Their choice fell upon Godfrey of Bouillon. He refused to wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns and accepted, instead, the modest title of "Protector of the Holy Sepulcher." [8] Godfrey died the next year and his brother Baldwin, who succeeded him, being less scrupulous, was crowned king at Bethlehem. The new kingdom contained nearly a score of fiefs, whose lords made war, administered justice, and coined money, like independent rulers. The main features of European feudalism were thus transplanted to Asiatic soil.

OTHER CRUSADERS' STATES

The winning of Jerusalem and the district about it formed hardly more than a preliminary stage in the conquest of Syria. Much fighting was still necessary before the crusaders could establish themselves firmly in the country. Instead of founding one strong power in Syria, they split up their possessions into the three principalities of Tripoli, Antioch, and Edessa. These small states owed allegiance to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS

The ability of the crusaders' states to maintain themselves for many years in Syria was largely due to the foundation of two military-religious orders. The members were both monks and knights; that is, to the monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience they added a fourth vow, which bound them to protect pilgrims and fight the infidels. Such a combination of religion and warfare made a strong appeal to the medieval mind.

HOSPITALERS AND TEMPLARS

The Hospitalers, the first of these orders, grew out of a brotherhood for the care of sick pilgrims in a hospital at Jerusalem. Many knights joined the organization, which soon proved to be very useful in defending the Holy Land. Even more important were the Templars, so called because their headquarters in Jerusalem lay near the site of Solomon's Temple. Both orders built many castles in Syria, the remains of which still impress the beholder. They established numerous branches in Europe and, by presents and legacies, acquired vast wealth. The Templars were disbanded in the fourteenth century, but the Hospitalers continued to fight valiantly against the Turks long after the close of the crusading movement. [9]



CHRISTIAN AND INFIDEL IN THE HOLY LAND

The depleted ranks of the crusaders were constantly filled by fresh bands of pilgrim knights who visited Palestine to pray at the Holy Sepulcher and cross swords with the infidel. In spite of constant border warfare much trade and friendly intercourse prevailed between Christians and Moslems. They learned to respect one another both as foes and neighbors. The crusaders' states in Syria became, like Spain [10] and Sicily, [11] a meeting-place of East and West.

172. SECOND CRUSADE, 1147-1149 A.D., AND THIRD CRUSADE, 1189-1192 A.D.

ORIGIN OF THE SECOND CRUSADE

The success of the Christians in the First Crusade had been largely due to the disunion among their enemies. But the Moslems learned in time the value of united action, and in 1144 A.D. succeeded in capturing Edessa, one of the principal Christian outposts in the East. The fall of the city, followed by the loss of the entire county of Edessa, aroused western Europe to the danger which threatened the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and led to another crusading enterprise.

PREACHING OF ST. BERNARD

The apostle of the Second Crusade was the great abbot of Clairvaux, St. Bernard. [12] Scenes of the wildest enthusiasm marked his preaching. When the churches were not large enough to hold the crowds which flocked to hear him, he spoke from platforms erected in the fields. St. Bernard's eloquence induced two monarchs, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, to take the blood-red cross of a crusader.

FAILURE OF THE SECOND CRUSADE

The Second Crusade, though begun under the most favorable auspices, had an unhappy ending. Of the great host that set out from Europe, only a few thousands escaped annihilation in Asia Minor at the hands of the Turks. Louis and Conrad, with the remnants of their armies, made a joint attack on Damascus, but had to raise the siege after a few days. This closed the crusade. As a chronicler of the expedition remarked, "having practically accomplished nothing, the inglorious ones returned home."

SALADIN

Not many years after the Second Crusade, the Moslem world found in the famous Saladin a leader for a holy war against the Christians. Saladin in character was a typical Mohammedan, very devout in prayers and fasting, fiercely hostile toward unbelievers, and full of the pride of race. To these qualities he added a kindliness and humanity not surpassed, if equaled, by any of his Christian foes. He lives in eastern history and legend as the hero who stemmed once for all the tide of European conquest in Asia.

CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM BY SALADIN, 1187 A.D.

Having made himself sultan of Egypt, Saladin united the Moslems of Syria under his sway and then advanced against the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Christians met him in a great battle near the lake of Galilee. It ended in the rout of their army and the capture of their king. Even the Holy Cross, which they had carried in the midst of the fight, became the spoil of the conqueror. Saladin quickly reaped the fruits of victory. The Christian cities of Syria opened their gates to him, and at last Jerusalem itself surrendered after a short siege. Little now remained of the possessions which the crusaders had won in the East.

THIRD CRUSADE ORGANIZED, 1189 A.D.

The news of the taking of Jerusalem spread consternation throughout western Christendom. The cry for another crusade arose on all sides. Once more thousands of men sewed the cross in gold, or silk, or cloth upon their garments and set out for the Holy Land. When the three greatest rulers of Europe—Philip Augustus, [13] king of France, Richard I, king of England, and the German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa [14]—assumed the cross, it seemed that nothing could prevent the restoration of Christian supremacy in Syria.

DEATH OF FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, 1190 A.D.

The Germans under Frederick Barbarossa were the first to start. This great emperor was now nearly seventy years old, yet age had not lessened his crusading zeal. He took the overland route and after much hard fighting reached southern Asia Minor. Here, however, he was drowned, while trying to cross a swollen stream. Many of his discouraged followers at once returned to Germany; a few of them, however, pressed on and joined the other crusaders before the walls of Acre.



ACRE CAPTURED BY PHILIP AND RICHARD, 1191 A.D.

The expedition of the French and English achieved little. Philip and Richard, who came by sea, captured Acre after a hard siege, but their quarrels prevented them from following up this initial success. Philip soon went home, leaving the further conduct of the crusade in Richard's hands.

RICHARD IN THE HOLY LAND, 1191-1192 A.D.

The English king remained for fourteen months longer in the Holy Land. His campaigns during this time gained for him the title of "Lion-hearted," [15] by which he is always known. He had many adventures and performed knightly exploits without number, but could not capture Jerusalem. Tradition declares that when, during a truce, some crusaders went up to Jerusalem, Richard refused to accompany them, saying that he would not enter as a pilgrim the city which he could not rescue as a conqueror. He and Saladin finally concluded a treaty by the terms of which Christians were permitted to visit Jerusalem without paying tribute. Richard then set sail for England, and with his departure from the Holy Land the Third Crusade came to an end.

173. FOURTH CRUSADE AND THE LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 1202-1261 A.D.

INNOCENT III AND THE FOURTH CRUSADE

The real author of the Fourth Crusade was the famous pope, Innocent III. [16] Young, enthusiastic, and ambitious for the glory of the Papacy, he revived the plans of Urban II and sought once more to unite the forces of Christendom against Islam. No emperor or king answered his summons, but a number of knights (chiefly French) took the crusader's vow.

THE CRUSADERS AND THE VENETIANS

The leaders of the crusade decided to make Egypt their objective point, since this country was then the center of the Moslem power. Accordingly, the crusaders proceeded to Venice, for the purpose of securing transportation across the Mediterranean. The Venetians agreed to furnish the necessary ships only on condition that the crusaders first seized Zara on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. Zara was a Christian city, but it was also a naval and commercial rival of Venice. In spite of the pope's protests the crusaders besieged and captured the city. Even then they did not proceed against the Moslems. The Venetians persuaded them to turn their arms against Constantinople. The possession of that great capital would greatly increase Venetian trade and influence in the East; for the crusading nobles it held out endless opportunities of acquiring wealth and power. Thus it happened that these soldiers of the Cross, pledged to war with the Moslems, attacked a Christian city, which for centuries had formed the chief bulwark of Europe against the Arab and the Turk.

SACK OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 1204 A.D.

The crusaders—now better styled the invaders—took Constantinople by storm. No "infidels" could have treated in worse fashion this home of ancient civilization. They burned down a great part of it; they slaughtered the inhabitants; they wantonly destroyed monuments, statues, paintings, and manuscripts—the accumulation of a thousand years. Much of the movable wealth they carried away. Never, declared an eye-witness of the scene, had there been such plunder since the world began.

THE LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 1204-1261 A.D.

The victors hastened to divide between them the lands of the Roman Empire in the East. Venice gained some districts in Greece, together with nearly all the Aegean islands. The chief crusaders formed part of the remaining territory into the Latin Empire of Constantinople. It was organized in fiefs, after the feudal manner. There was a prince of Achaia, a duke of Athens, a marquis of Corinth, and a count of Thebes. Large districts, both in Europe and Asia, did not acknowledge, however, these "Latin" rulers. The new empire lived less than sixty years. At the end of this time the Greeks returned to power.

DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOURTH CRUSADE

Constantinople, after the Fourth Crusade, declined in strength and could no longer cope with the barbarians menacing it. Two centuries later the city fell an easy victim to the Turks. [17] The responsibility for the disaster which gave the Turks a foothold in Europe rests on the heads of the Venetians and the French nobles. Their greed and lust for power turned the Fourth Crusade into a political adventure.

THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE, 1213 A.D.

The so-called Children's Crusade illustrates at once the religious enthusiasm and misdirected zeal which marked the whole crusading movement. During the year 1212 A.D. thousands of French children assembled in bands and marched through the towns and villages, carrying banners, candles, and crosses and singing, "Lord God, exalt Christianity. Lord God, restore to us the true cross." The children could not be restrained at first, but finally hunger compelled them to return home. In Germany, during the same year, a lad named Nicholas really did succeed in launching a crusade. He led a mixed multitude of men and women, boys and girls over the Alps into Italy, where they expected to take ship for Palestine. But many perished of hardships, many were sold into slavery, and only a few ever saw their homes again. "These children," Pope Innocent III declared, "put us to shame; while we sleep they rush to recover the Holy Land."

END OF THE CRUSADES

The crusading movement came to an end by the close of the thirteenth century. The emperor Frederick II [18] for a short time recovered Jerusalem by a treaty, but in 1244 A.D. the Holy City became again a possession of the Moslems. They have never since relinquished it. Acre, the last Christian post in Syria, fell in 1291 A.D., and with this event the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ceased to exist. The Hospitalers, or Knights of St. John, still kept possession of the important islands of Cyprus and Rhodes, which long served as a barrier to Moslem expansion over the Mediterranean.

174. RESULTS OF THE CRUSADES

FAILURE OF THE CRUSADES

The crusades, judged by what they set out to accomplish, must be accounted an inglorious failure. After two hundred years of conflict, after a vast expenditure of wealth and human lives, the Holy Land remained in Moslem hands. It is true that the First Crusade did help, by the conquest of Syria, to check the advance of the Turks toward Constantinople. But even this benefit was more than undone by the weakening of the Roman Empire in the East as a result of the Fourth Crusade.

WHY THE CRUSADES FAILED

Of the many reasons for the failure of the crusades, three require special consideration. In the first place, there was the inability of eastern and western Europe to cooperate in supporting the holy wars. A united Christendom might well have been invincible. But the bitter antagonism between the Greek and Roman churches [19] effectually prevented all unity of action. The emperors at Constantinople, after the First Crusade, rarely assisted the crusaders and often secretly hindered them. In the second place, the lack of sea-power, as seen in the earlier crusades, worked against their success. Instead of being able to go by water directly to Syria, it was necessary to follow the long, overland route from France or Germany through Hungary, Bulgaria, the territory of the Roman Empire in the East, and the deserts and mountains of Asia Minor. The armies that reached their destination after this toilsome march were in no condition for effective campaigning. In the third place, the crusaders were never numerous enough to colonize so large a country as Syria and absorb its Moslem population. They conquered part of Syria in the First Crusade, but could not hold it permanently in the face of determined resistance.

WHY THE CRUSADES CEASED

In spite of these and other reasons the Christians of Europe might have continued much longer their efforts to recover the Holy Land, had they not lost faith in the movement. But after two centuries the old crusading enthusiasm died out, the old ideal of the crusade as "the way of God" lost its spell. Men had begun to think less of winning future salvation by visits to distant shrines and to think more of their present duties to the world about them. They came to believe that Jerusalem could best be won as Christ and the Apostles had won it—"by love, by prayers, and by the shedding of tears."

INFLUENCE OF THE CRUSADES ON FEUDALISM

The crusades could not fail to affect in many ways the life of western Europe. For instance, they helped to undermine feudalism. Thousands of barons and knights mortgaged or sold their lands in order to raise money for a crusading expedition. Thousands more perished in Syria and their estates, through failure of heirs, reverted to the crown. Moreover, private warfare, that curse of the Middle Ages, [20] also tended to die out with the departure for the Holy Land of so many turbulent feudal lords. Their decline in both numbers and influence, and the corresponding growth of the royal authority, may best be traced in the changes that came about in France, the original home of the crusading movement.

THE CRUSADES AND COMMERCE

One of the most important effects of the crusades was on commerce. They created a constant demand for the transportation of men and supplies, encouraged ship-building, and extended the market for eastern wares in Europe. The products of Damascus, Mosul, Alexandria, Cairo, and other great cities were carried across the Mediterranean to the Italian seaports, whence they found their way into all European lands. The elegance of the Orient, with its silks, tapestries, precious stones, perfumes, spices, pearls, and ivory, was so enchanting that an enthusiastic crusader called it "the vestibule of Paradise."

THE CRUSADES AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE

Finally, it must be noted how much the crusades contributed to intellectual and social progress. They brought the inhabitants of western Europe into close relations with one another, with their fellow Christians of the Roman Empire in the East, and with the natives of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. The intercourse between Christians and Moslems was particularly stimulating, because the East at this time surpassed the West in civilization. The crusaders enjoyed the advantages which come from travel in strange lands and among unfamiliar peoples. They went out from their castles or villages to see great cities, marble palaces, superb dresses, and elegant manners; they returned with finer tastes, broader ideas, and wider sympathies. Like the conquests of Alexander the Great, the crusades opened up a new world.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRUSADES

When all is said, the crusades remain one of the most remarkable movements in history. They exhibited the nations of western Europe for the first time making a united effort for a common end. The crusaders were not hired soldiers, but volunteers, who, while the religious fervor lasted, gladly abandoned their homes and faced hardship and death in pursuit of a spiritual ideal. They failed to accomplish their purpose, yet humanity is the richer for the memory of their heroism and chivalry.

STUDIES

1. On an outline map indicate Europe and the Mediterranean lands by religions, about 1095 A.D.

2. On an outline map indicate the routes of the First and the Third Crusades.

3. Locate on the map the following places: Clermont; Acre; Antioch; Zara; Edessa; and Damascus.

4. Identify the following dates: 1204 A.D.; 1095 A.D.; 1096 A.D.; 1291 A.D.

5. Write a short essay describing the imaginary experiences of a crusader to the Holy Land.

6. Mention some instances which illustrate the religious enthusiasm of the crusaders.

7. Compare the Mohammedan pilgrimage to Mecca with the pilgrimages of Christians to Jerusalem in the Middle Ages.

8. Compare the Christian crusade with the Mohammedan jihad, or holy war.

9. How did the expression, a "red-cross knight," arise?

10. Why is the Second Crusade often called "St. Bernard's Crusade"?

11. Why has the Third Crusade been called "the most interesting international expedition of the Middle Ages"?

12. Would the crusaders in 1204 A.D. have attacked Constantinople, if the schism of 1054 A.D. had not occurred?

13. "Mixture, or at least contact of races, is essential to progress." How do the crusades illustrate the truth of this statement?

14. Were the crusades the only means by which western Europe was brought in contact with Moslem civilization?

FOOTNOTES

[1] Webster, Readings in Medieval and Modern History, chapter xii, "Richard the Lion-hearted and the Third Crusade"; chapter xiii, "The Fourth Crusade and the Capture of Constantinople."

[2] See page 412.

[3] See pages 333, 380.

[4] See page 235.

[5] Hence the name "crusades," from Latin crux, old French crois, a "cross".

[6] For the routes followed by the crusaders see the map between pages 478-479.

[7] See page 412.

[8] The emperor Constantine caused a stately church to be erected on the supposed site of Christ's tomb. This church of the Holy Sepulcher was practically destroyed by the Moslems, early in the eleventh century. The crusaders restored and enlarged the structure, which still stands.

[9] The order of Hospitalers, now known as the "Knights of Malta," still survives in several European countries.

[10] See page 383.

[11] See page 413.

[12] See pages 449-450.

[13] See page 513.

[14] See page 460.

[15] In French Coeur-de-Lion.

[16] See page 461.

[17] See page 492.

[18] See page 462.

[19] See pages 362-363.

[20] See page 423.



CHAPTER XXI

THE MONGOLS AND THE OTTOMAN TURKS TO 1463 A.D.

175. THE MONGOLS

THE ASIATIC COUNTER-ATTACK

The extensive steppes in the middle and north of Asia have formed, for thousands of years, the abode of nomadic peoples belonging to the Yellow race. In prehistoric times they spread over northern Europe, but they were gradually supplanted by white-skinned Indo-Europeans, until now only remnants of them exist, such as the Finns and Lapps. In later ages history records how the Huns, the Bulgarians, and the Magyars have poured into Europe, spreading terror and destruction in their path. [1] These invaders were followed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the even more terrible Mongols and Ottoman Turks. Their inroads might well be described as Asia's reply to the crusades, as an Asiatic counter-attack upon Europe.

MONGOLIA

The Mongols, who have given their name to the entire race of yellow- skinned peoples, now chiefly occupy the high plateau bounded on the north by Siberia, on the south by China, on the east by Manchuria, and on the west by Turkestan. [2] Although the greater part of this area consists of the Gobi desert, there are many oases and pastures available at different seasons of the year to the inhabitants. Hence the principal occupation of the Mongols has always been cattle breeding, and their horses, oxen, sheep, and camels have always furnished them with food and clothing.

MONGOL LIFE AND CHARACTER

Like most nomads the Mongols dwell in tents, each family often by itself. Severe simplicity is the rule of life, for property consists of little more than one's flocks and herds, clothes, and weapons. The modern Mongols are a peaceable, kindly folk, who have adopted from Tibet a debased form of Buddhism, but the Mongols of the thirteenth century in religion and morals were scarcely above the level of American Indians. To ruthless cruelty and passion for plunder they added an efficiency in warfare which enabled them, within fifty years, to overrun much of Asia and the eastern part of Europe.



MILITARY PROWESS OF THE MONGOLS

The daily life of the Mongols was a training school for war. Constant practice in riding, scouting, and the use of arms made every man a soldier. The words with which an ancient Greek historian described the savage Scythians applied perfectly to the Mongols: "Having neither cities nor forts, and carrying their dwellings with them wherever they go; accustomed, moreover, one and all, to shoot from horseback; and living not by husbandry but on their cattle, their wagons the only houses that they possess, how can they fail of being irresistible?" [3]

176. CONQUESTS OF THE MONGOLS, 1206-1405 A.D.

JENGHIZ KHAN

For ages the Mongols had dwelt in scattered tribes throughout their Asiatic wilderness, engaged in petty struggles with one another for cattle and pasture lands. It was the celebrated Jenghiz Khan, [4] chief of one of the tribes, who brought them all under his authority and then led them to the conquest of the world. Of him it may be said with truth that he had the most victorious of military careers, and that he constructed the most extensive empire known to history. If Jenghiz had possessed the ability of a statesman, he would have taken a place by the side of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.

MONGOL EMPIRE UNDER JENGHIZ, 1206-1227 A.D.

Jenghiz first sent the Mongol armies, which contained many Turkish allies, over the Great Wall [5] and into the fertile plains of China. All the northern half of the country was quickly overrun. Then Jenghiz turned westward and invaded Turkestan and Persia. Seven centuries have not sufficed to repair the damage which the Mongols wrought in this once- prosperous land. The great cities of Bokhara, Samarkand, Merv, and Herat, [6] long centers of Moslem culture, were pillaged and burned, and their inhabitants were put to the sword. Like the Huns the Mongols seemed a scourge sent by God. Still further conquests enlarged the empire, which at the death of Jenghiz in 1227 A.D. stretched from the Dnieper River to the China Sea.

MONGOL EMPIRE UNDER THE SUCCESSORS OF JENGHIZ

The Mongol dominions in the thirteenth century were increased by the addition of Korea, southern China, and Mesopotamia, as well as the greater part of Asia Minor and Russia. Japan, indeed, repulsed the Mongol hordes, but at the other extremity of Asia they captured Bagdad, sacked the city, and brought the caliphate to an end. [7] The Mongol realm was very loosely organized, however, and during the fourteenth century it fell apart into a number of independent states, or khanates.



TIMUR THE LAME, DIED 1405 A.D.

It was reserved for another renowned Oriental monarch, Timur the Lame, [8] to restore the empire of Jenghiz Khan. His biographers traced his descent from that famous Mongol, but Timur was a Turk and an adherent of Islam. He has come down to us as perhaps the most terrible personification in history of the evil spirit of conquest. Such distant regions as India, Syria, Armenia, Asia Minor, and Russia were traversed by Timur's soldiers, who left behind them only the smoking ruins of a thousand cities and abominable trophies in the shape of columns or pyramids of human heads. Timur died in his seventieth year, while leading his troops against China, and the extensive empire which he had built up in Asia soon crumbled to pieces.



177. THE MONGOLS IN CHINA AND INDIA

MONGOL SWAY IN CHINA

The Mongols ruled over China for about one hundred and fifty years. During this period they became thoroughly imbued with Chinese culture. "China," said an old writer, "is a sea that salts all the rivers flowing into it." The most eminent of the Mongol emperors was Jenghiz Khan's grandson, Kublai (1259-1294 A.D.). He built a new capital, which in medieval times was known as Cambaluc and is now called Peking. While Kublai was on the throne, the Venetian traveler, Marco Polo, [9] visited China, and he describes in glowing colors the virtues and glories of the "Great Khan." There appears to have been considerable trade between Europe and China at this time, and Franciscan missionaries and papal legates penetrated to the remote East. After the downfall of the Mongol dynasty in 1368 A.D. China again shut her doors to foreign peoples. All intercourse with Europe ceased until the arrival of the Portuguese in the sixteenth century. [10]

TIMUR AND BABER IN INDIA

Northern India, which in earlier ages had witnessed the coming of Persian, Macedonian, and Arabian conquerors, did not escape visitations by fresh Asiatic hordes. Timur the Lame, at the head of an innumerable host, rushed down upon the banks of the Indus and the Ganges and sacked Delhi, making there a full display of his unrivaled ferocity. Timur's invasion left no permanent impress on the history of India, but its memory fired the imagination of another Turkish chieftain, Baber, a remote descendant of Timur. In 1525 A.D. he invaded India and speedily made himself master of the northern part of the country.

EMPIRE OF THE MOGULS

The empire which Baber established in India is known as that of the Moguls, an Arabic form of the word Mongol. The Moguls, however, were Turkish in blood and Mohammedans in religion. The Mogul emperors reigned in great splendor from their capitals at Delhi and Agra, until the decline of their power in the eighteenth century opened the way for the British conquest of India.

178. THE MONGOLS IN EASTERN EUROPE

MONGOL CONQUEST OF RUSSIA, 1237-1240 A.D.

The location of Russia [11] on the border of Asia exposed that country to the full force of the Mongol attack. Jenghiz Khan's successors, entering Europe north of the Caspian, swept resistlessly over the Russian plain. Moscow and Kiev fell in quick succession, and before long the greater part of Russia was in the hands of the Mongols. Wholesale massacres marked their progress. "No eye remained open to weep for the dead."



INVASION OF POLAND AND HUNGARY BY THE MONGOLS, 1241 A.D.

Still the invaders pressed on. They devastated Hungary, driving the Magyar king in panic flight from his realm. They overran Poland. At a great battle in Silesia they destroyed the knighthood of Germany and filled nine sacks with the right ears of slaughtered enemies. The European peoples, taken completely by surprise, could offer no effective resistance to these Asiatics, who combined superiority in numbers with surpassing generalship. Since the Arab attack in the eighth century Christendom had never been in graver peril. But the wave of Mongol invasion, which threatened to engulf Europe in barbarism, receded as quickly as it came. The Mongols soon abandoned Poland and Hungary and retired to their possessions in Russia.



THE "GOLDEN HORDE"

The ruler of the "Golden Horde," as the western section of the Mongol Empire was called, continued to be the lord of Russia for about two hundred and fifty years. Russia, throughout this period, was little more than a dependency of Asia. The conquered people were obliged to pay a heavy tribute and to furnish soldiers for the Mongol armies. Their princes, also, became vassals of the Great Khan.

MONGOL INFLUENCE ON RUSSIA

The Mongols, or "Tartars" [12] are usually said to have Orientalized Russia. It seems clear, however, that they did not interfere with the language, religion, and laws of their subjects. The chief result of the Mongol supremacy was to cut off Russia from western Europe, just at the time when England, France, Germany, and Italy were emerging from the darkness of the early Middle Ages.

RISE OF MUSCOVY

The invasion of the Mongols proved to be, indirectly, the making of the Russian state. Before they came the country was a patchwork of rival, and often warring, principalities. The need of union against the common enemy welded them together. The principality of Muscovy, so named from the capital city of Moscow, conquered its neighbors, annexed the important city of Novgorod, whose vast possessions stretched from Lapland to the Urals, and finally became powerful enough to shake off the Mongol yoke.

REIGN OF IVAN III, THE GREAT, 1462-1505 A.D.

The final deliverance of Russia from the Mongols was accomplished by Ivan III, surnamed the Great. This ruler is also regarded as the founder of Russian autocracy, that is, of a personal, absolute, and arbitrary government. With a view to strengthening his claim to be the political heir of the eastern emperors, Ivan married a niece of the last ruler at Constantinople, who in 1453 A.D. had fallen in the defense of his capital against the Ottoman Turks. Henceforth the Russian ruler described himself as "the new Tsar [13] Constantine in the new city of Constantine, Moscow."

179. THE OTTOMAN TURKS AND THEIR CONQUESTS, 1227-1453 A.D.

RISE OF THE OTTOMANS

The first appearance of the Ottoman Turks in history dates from 1227 A.D., the year of Jenghiz Khan's death. In that year a small Turkish horde, driven westward from their central Asian homes by the Mongol advance, settled in Asia Minor. There they enjoyed the protection of their kinsmen, the Seljuk Turks, and from them accepted Islam. As the Seljuk power declined, that of the Ottomans rose in its stead. About 1300 A.D. their chieftain, Othman, [14] declared his independence and became the founder of the Ottoman Empire.

OTTOMAN EXPANSION

The growth of the Ottoman power was almost as rapid as that of the Arabs or of the Mongols. During the first half of the fourteenth century they firmly established themselves in northwestern Asia Minor, along the beautiful shores washed by the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmora, and the Dardanelles. The second half of the same century found them in Europe, wresting province after province from the feeble hands of the eastern emperors. First came the seizure of Gallipoli on the Dardanelles, which long remained the principal Turkish naval station. Then followed the capture of Adrianople, where in earlier centuries the Visigoths had destroyed a Roman army. [15] By 1400 A.D. all that remained of the Roman Empire in the East was Constantinople and a small district in the vicinity of that city.

THE JANIZARIES

The Turks owed much of their success to the famous body of troops known as Janizaries. [16] These were recruited for the most part from Christian children surrendered by their parents as tribute. The Janizaries received an education in the Moslem faith and careful instruction in the use of arms. Their discipline and fanatic zeal made them irresistible on the field of battle.



CONSTANTINOPLE BESIEGED

Constantinople had never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the freebooters of the Fourth Crusade. [17] It was isolated from western Europe by the advance of the Turks. Frantic appeals for help brought only a few ships and men from Genoa and Venice. When in 1453 A.D. the sultan Mohammed II, commanding a large army amply supplied with artillery, appeared before the walls, all men knew that Constantinople was doomed.

CAPTURE OF THE CITY

The defense of the city forms one of the most stirring episodes in history. The Christians, not more than eight thousand in number, were a mere handful compared to the Ottoman hordes. Yet they held out for nearly two months against every assault. When at length the end drew near, the Roman emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, a hero worthy of the name he bore, went with his followers at midnight to Sancta Sophia and there in that solemn fane received a last communion. Before sunrise on the following day the Turks were within the walls. The emperor, refusing to survive the city which he could not save, fell in the onrush of the Janizaries. Constantinople endured a sack of three days, during which many works of art, previously spared by the crusaders, were destroyed. Mohammed II then made a triumphal entry into the city and in Sancta Sophia, now stripped of its crosses, images, and other Christian emblems, proclaimed the faith of the prophet. And so the "Turkish night," as Slavic poets named it, descended on this ancient home of civilization.

AN EPOCH-MAKING EVENT

The capture of Constantinople is rightly regarded as an epoch-making event. It meant the end, once for all, of the empire which had served so long as the rearguard of Christian civilization, as the bulwark of the West against the East. Europe stood aghast at a calamity which she had done so little to prevent. The Christian powers of the West have been paying dearly, even to our own time, for their failure to save New Rome from infidel hands.

180. THE OTTOMAN TURKS IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

CONTINUED OTTOMAN EXPANSION

Turkey was now a European state. After the occupation of Constantinople the Ottoman territories continued to expand, and at the death of Mohammed II they included what are now Bulgaria, Rumania, Serbia, Albania, and Greece. Of all the Balkan states only tiny Montenegro, protected by mountain ramparts, preserved its independence.

NATURE OF TURKISH RULE

The Turks form a small minority among the inhabitants of the Balkans. At the present time there are said to be less than one million Turks in southeastern Europe. Even about Constantinople the Greeks far outnumber them. The Turks from the outset have been, not a nation in the proper sense of the word, but rather an army of occupation, holding down by force their far more numerous Christian subjects.

THE TURKS A MIXED PEOPLE

The people who thus acquired dominion over all southeastern Europe had become, even at the middle of the fifteenth century, greatly mixed in blood. Their ancestors were natives of central Asia, but in Europe they intermarried freely with their Christian captives and with converts from Christianity to Islam. So far has this admixture proceeded that the modern Turks are almost entirely European in physique.



ISOLATION OF THE TURKS

The Bulgarians, who came out of Asia to devastate Europe, at length turned Christian, adopted a Slavic speech, and entered the family of European nations. The Magyars, who followed them, also made their way into the fellowship of Christendom. Quite the opposite has been the case with the Turks. Preserving their Asiatic language and Moslem faith, they have remained in southeastern Europe, not a transitory scourge, but an abiding oppressor of Christian lands. Every century since 1453 A.D. has widened the gulf between them and their subjects.

TURKISH INFLUENCE IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

The isolation of the Turks has prevented them from assimilating the higher culture of the peoples whom they conquered. They have never created anything in science, art, literature, commerce, or industry. Conquest has been the Turks' one business in the world, and when they ceased conquering their decline set in. But it was not till the end of the seventeenth century that the Turkish Empire entered on that downward road which is now fast leading to its extinction as a European power.

STUDIES

1. Locate these cities: Bokhara; Samarkand; Merv; Herat; Bagdad; Peking; Delhi; Kiev; Moscow; and Adrianople.

2. Who were Baber, Kublai Khan, Othman, Mohammed II, Constantine Palaeologus, and Ivan the Great?

3. Why should the steppes of central and northern Asia have been a nursery of warlike peoples?

4. What parts of Asia were not included in the Mongol Empire at its greatest extent?

5. Trace on the map on page 486 the further expansion of the Mongol Empire after the death of Jenghiz Khan.

6. "Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar." What does this mean?

7. Why did the Mongol conquest of Russia tend to strengthen the sentiment of nationality in the Russian people?

8. How did the tsars come to regard themselves as the successors of the Eastern emperors?

9. Compare the Janizaries with the Christian military-religious orders.

10. How was "the victory of the Crescent secured by the children of the Cross"?

11. Why were the invasions of the Mongols and Ottoman Turks more destructive to civilization than those of the Germans, the Arabs, and the Northmen?

12. Enumerate the more important services of the Roman Empire in the East to civilization.

13. On an outline map indicate the extent of the Ottoman Empire in 1453 A.D.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See pages 241, 247, 314, 316, 334.

[2] Mongolia has long been a part of the Chinese Empire, but in 1912 A.D., when China because a republic, Mongolia declared its independence.

[3] Herodotus, iv, 46.

[4] "The Very Mighty King."

[5] See page 20.

[6] For the location of these cities see the map on page 486.

[7] See page 381.

[8] Commonly known as Tamerlane.

[9] See page 616.

[10] See page 622.

[11] For the early history of Russia see page 400.

[12] The name Tartar (more correctly, Tatar) was originally applied to both Mongol and Turkish tribes that entered Russia. There are still over three millions of these "Tartars" in the Russian Empire.

[13] The title Tsar, or Czar, is supposed to be a contraction of the word Caesar.

[14] Whence the name Ottoman applied to this branch of the Turks.

[15] See page 242.

[16] A name derived from the Turkish yeni cheri, "new troops."

[17] See page 478.



CHAPTER XXII

EUROPEAN NATIONS DURING THE LATER MIDDLE AGES [1]

181. GROWTH OF THE NATIONS

THE NEW NATIONALISM

The map of western Europe, that is, of Europe west of the great Russian plain and the Balkan peninsula, shows this part of the continent at present divided into no less than thirteen separate and independent nations. Most of them arose during the latter part of the Middle Ages. They have existed so long that we now think of the national state as the highest type of human association, forgetting that it has been preceded by other forms of political organization, such as the Greek republic, the Roman Empire, and the feudal state, and that it may be followed some day by an international or universal state composed of all civilized peoples.

THE NATIONAL STATE AND FEUDALISM

These national states were the successors of feudalism. The establishment of the feudal system in any country meant, as has been seen, its division into numerous small communities, each with a law court, treasury, and army. This system of local government helped to keep order in an age of confusion, but it did not meet the needs of a progressive society. In most parts of Europe the feudal states gradually gave way to centralized governments ruled by despotic kings.

THE NEW MONARCHIES

A feudal king was often little more than a figurehead, equaled, or perhaps surpassed, in power by some of his own vassals. But in England, France, Spain, and other countries a series of astute and energetic sovereigns were able to strengthen their authority at the expense of the nobles. They formed permanent armies by insisting that all military service should be rendered to themselves and not to the feudal lords. They got into their own hands the administration of justice. They developed a revenue system, with the taxes collected by royal officers and deposited in the royal treasury. The kings thus succeeded in creating in each country one power which all the inhabitants feared, respected, and obeyed.

THE SENTIMENT OF NATIONALITY

A national state in modern times is keenly conscious of its separate existence. All its people usually speak the same language and have for their "fatherland" the warmest feelings of patriotic devotion. In the Middle Ages, however, patriotism was commonly confounded with loyalty to the sovereign, while the differences between nations were obscured by the existence of an international Church and by the use of Latin as the common language of all cultivated persons. The sentiment of nationality arose earlier in England than on the Continent, partly owing to the insular position of that country, but nowhere did it become a very strong influence before the end of the fifteenth century.

182. ENGLAND UNDER WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, 1066-1087 A.D.; THE NORMAN KINGSHIP

THE LAST INVASION OF ENGLAND

The Normans were the last invaders of England. Since 1066 A.D. the English Channel, not more than twenty-one miles wide between Dover and Calais, has formed a watery barrier against Continental domination. The English people, for eight and a half centuries, have been free to develop their ideals, customs, and methods of government in their own way. We shall now learn how they established a strong monarchy and at the same time laid deep and firm the foundations of constitutional liberty.

WILLIAM'S DESPOTIC RULE

William the Conqueror had won England by force of arms. He ruled it as a despot. Those who resisted him he treated as rebels, confiscating their land and giving it to Norman followers. To prevent uprisings he built a castle in every important town and garrisoned it with his own soldiers. The Tower of London still stands as an impressive memorial of the days of the Conquest. But William did not rely on force alone. He sought with success to attach the English to himself by retaining most of their old customs and by giving them an enlightened administration of the law. "Good peace he made in this land," said the old Anglo-Saxon chronicler, "so that a man might travel over the kingdom with his bosom full of gold without molestation, and no man durst kill another, however great the injury he might have received from him."

WILLIAM AND FEUDALISM

The feudal system on the Continent permitted a powerful noble to gather his vassals and make war on the king, whenever he chose to do so. William had been familiar with this evil side of feudalism, both in France and in his own duchy of Normandy, and he determined to prevent its introduction into England. William established the principle that a vassal owed his first duty to the king and not to his immediate lord. If a noble rebelled and his men followed him, they were to be treated as traitors. Rebellion proved to be an especially difficult matter in England, since the estates which a great lord possessed were not all in any one place but were scattered about the kingdom. A noble who planned to revolt could be put down before he was able to collect his retainers from the most distant parts of the country.



DOMESDAY BOOK, 1085 A.D.

The extent of William's authority is illustrated by the survey which he caused to have made of the taxable property of the kingdom. Royal commissioners went throughout the length and breadth of England to find out how much farm land there was in every county, how many landowners there were, and what each man possessed, to the last ox or cow or pig. The reports were set down in the famous Domesday Book, perhaps so called because one could no more appeal from it than from the Last Judgment. A similar census of population and property had never before been taken in the Middle Ages.



THE SALISBURY OATH, 1086 A.D.

Almost at the close of his reign William is said to have summoned all the landowning men in England to a great meeting on Salisbury Plain. They assembled there to the number, as it is reported, of sixty thousand and promised "that they would be faithful to him against all other men." The Salisbury Oath was a national act of homage and allegiance to the king.

183. ENGLAND UNDER HENRY II, 1154-1189 A.D.; ROYAL JUSTICE AND THE COMMON LAW

HENRY II, PLANTAGENET Henry II, who ascended the English throne in 1154 A.D., was a grandson of William the Conqueror and the first of the famous Plantagenet [2] family, Henry spent more than half of his reign abroad, looking after his extensive possessions in France but this fact did not prevent him from giving England good government. Three things in which all Englishmen take special pride—the courts, the jury system, and the Common law—began to take shape during Henry's reign.

THE KING'S COURT

Henry, first of all, developed the royal court of justice. This had been, at first, simply the court of the king's chief vassals, corresponding to the local feudal courts. [3] Henry transformed it from an occasional assembly of warlike nobles into a regular body of trained lawyers, and at the same time opened its doors to all except serfs. In the king's court any freeman could find a justice that was cheaper and speedier than that dispensed by the feudal lords. The higher courts of England have sprung from this institution.

CIRCUIT JUDGES

Henry also took measures to bring the king's justice directly to the people. He sent members of the royal court on circuit throughout the kingdom. At least once a year a judge was to hold an assembly in each county and try such cases as were brought before him. This system of circuit judges helped to make the law uniform in all parts of England.

TRIAL BY "PETTY JURY"

The king's court owed much of its popularity to the fact that it employed a better form of trying cases than the old ordeal, oath-swearing, or judicial duel. Henry introduced a method of jury trial which had long been in use in Normandy. When a case came before the king's judges on circuit, they were to select twelve knights, usually neighbors of the parties engaged in the dispute, to make an investigation and give a "verdict" [4] as to which side was in the right. These selected men bore the name of "jurors," [5] because they swore to tell the truth. In Henry's time this method of securing justice applied only to civil cases, that is, to cases affecting land and other forms of property, but later it was extended to persons charged with criminal offenses. Thus arose the "petty jury," an institution which nearly all European peoples have borrowed from England.



ACCUSATION BY THE "GRAND JURY"

Another of Henry's innovations developed into the "grand jury." Before his time many offenders went unpunished, especially if they were so powerful that no private individual dared accuse them. Henry provided that when the king's justices came to a county court a number of selected men should be put upon their oath and required to give the names of any persons whom they knew or believed to be guilty of crimes. Such persons were then to be arrested and tried. This "grand jury," as it came to be called, thus had the public duty of making accusations, whether its members felt any personal interest in the matter or not.

THE COMMON LAW

The decisions handed down by the legal experts who composed the royal court formed the basis of the English system of jurisprudence. It received the name Common law because it grew out of such customs as were common to the realm, as distinguished from those which were merely local. This law, from Henry's II's time, became so widespread and so firmly established that it could not be supplanted by the Roman law followed on the Continent. Carried by English colonists across the seas, it has now come to prevail throughout a great part of the world.

184. THE GREAT CHARTER, 1215 A.D.

RICHARD I AND JOHN, 1189-1216 A.D.

The great Henry, from whose legal reforms English-speaking peoples receive benefit even to-day, was followed by his son, Richard, the Lion-hearted crusader. [6] After a short reign Richard was succeeded by his brother, John, a man so cruel, tyrannical, and wicked that he is usually regarded as the worst of English kings. In a war with the French ruler, Philip Augustus, John lost Normandy and some of the other English possessions on the Continent. [7] In a dispute with Innocent III he ended by making an abject submission to the Papacy. [8] Finally, John's oppressive government provoked a revolt, and he was forced to grant the charter of privileges known as Magna Carta.



WINNING OF MAGNA CARTA, 1215 A.D.

The Norman Conquest had made the king so strong that his authority could be resisted only by a union of all classes of the people. The feudal lords were obliged to unite with the clergy and the commons, [9] in order to save their honor, their estates, and their heads. Matters came to a crisis in 1215 A.D., when the nobles, supported by the archbishop of Canterbury, placed their demands for reform in writing before the king. John swore furiously that they were "idle dreams without a shadow of reason" and refused to make any concessions. Thereupon the nobles formed the "army of God and the Holy Church," as it was called, and occupied London, thus ranging the townspeople on their side. Deserted by all except the hired troops which he had brought from the Continent, John was compelled to yield. At Runnimede on the Thames, not far from Windsor, he set his seal to the Great Charter.



CHARACTER OF MAGNA CARTA

Magna Carta does not profess to be a charter of liberties for all Englishmen. Most of its sixty-three clauses merely guarantee to each member of the coalition against John—nobles, clergy, and commons—those special privileges which the Norman rulers had tried to take away. Very little is said in this long document about the serfs, who composed probably five-sixths of the population of England in the thirteenth century.

SIGNIFICANCE OF MAGNA CARTA

But there are three clauses of Magna Carta which came to have a most important part in the history of English freedom. The first declared that no taxes were to be levied on the nobles—besides the three recognized feudal aids [10]—except by consent of the Great Council of the realm. [11] By this clause the nobles compelled the king to secure their consent before imposing any taxation. The second set forth that no one was to be arrested, imprisoned, or punished in any way, except after a trial by his equals and in accordance with the law of the land. The third said simply that to no one should justice be sold, denied, or delayed. These last two clauses contained the germ of great legal principles on which the English people relied for protection against despotic kings. They form a part of our American inheritance from England and have passed into the laws of all our states.

185. PARLIAMENT DURING THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

HENRY III, 1216-1272 A.D.

The thirteenth century, which opened so auspiciously with the winning of the Great Charter, is also memorable as the time when England developed her Parliament [12] into something like its present form. The first steps in parliamentary government were taken during the reign of John's son, Henry III.

THE WITENAGEMOT AND THE GREAT COUNCIL

It had long been the custom in England that in all important matters a ruler ought not to act without the advice and consent of his leading men. The Anglo-Saxon kings sought the advice and consent of their Witenagemot, [13] a body of nobles, royal officers, bishops, and abbots. It approved laws, served as a court of final appeal, elected a new monarch, and at times deposed him. The Witenagemot did not disappear after the Norman Conquest. Under the name of the Great Council it continued to meet from time to time for consultation with the king. This assembly was now to be transformed from a feudal body into a parliament representing the entire nation.

SIMON DE MONTFORT'S PARLIAMENT, 1265 A.D.

The Great Council, which by one of the provisions of Magna Carta had been required to give its consent to the levying of feudal dues, met quite frequently during Henry III's reign. On one occasion, when Henry was in urgent need of money and the bishops and lords refused to grant it, the king took the significant step of calling to the council two knights from each county to declare what aid they would give him. These knights, so ran Henry's summons, were to come "in the stead of each and all," in other words, they were to act as representatives of the counties. Then in 1265 A.D., when the nobles were at war with the king, a second and even more significant step was taken. Their leader, Simon de Montfort, summoned to the council not only two knights from each county, but also two citizens from each of the more important towns.