Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 44, More Crusades:
January 26, 2004:
In 1198, Pope Innocent III took the throne at Rome. Innocent, it seems, was not an apt title for this guy. He was intensely interested in launching some crusader activity of his own. To that end, he levied some Papal income taxes on his clerics to finance his ambitions. Then he hired a pretty good huckster, Fulk of Neuilly, to sell his crusade to the Europeans.
There were no Monarchs this time. A lesser French noble Geoffroi De Villehardouin answered the call along with a host of others and the fourth crusade got under way. It was not until 1202 that the crusaders arrive at Venice looking for transportation to Egypt. Egypt was the chosen target to act as a stepping stone to Jerusalem. It turned out they could not pay the fare so they agreed to sidetrack the crusade and help the Venetians conquer the Christian city of Zara in Hungary. Really strange goings on, I'd say. Christians beating up on Christians. Whatever, the sortie was successful and Innocent III absolved the crusaders.
After that, the Crusaders got sidetracked again. It seems there was a friend of a friend deal where a fellow named Alexius IV wanted to take the throne at Constantinople. The leaders of the crusade decided to help him do just that and they sallied forth, not toward Egypt but to Constantinople. Of course, there was also some moneys promised to the crusaders for their help. A letter from Innocent forbidding the action arrived too late to stop this silliness.
The crusaders and Venetians captured Constantinople and installed Alexius IV as emperor. The Greek residents got a bit crotchety about that and promptly assassinated this new Emperor. That did not go over well with the invaders and they decided to take firm control of the city. They did just that dividing up the booty amongst them. The resultant sack of Constantinople became the stuff of legend. After that the fourth crusade kind of petered out. From the standpoint of promoting the causes of Christianity it was a complete flop. The holy land was not liberated and the split between the Eastern and Western churches became a chasm. In addition, the Byzantine Empire was in ruins, never to fully recover.
Now there were other crusading attempts during the tenure of Innocent III. Two of these were the so called Children's Crusades in 1212. We can find different accounts of these from various sources. For sure we can choose to believe whichever ones we like. I choose to just take some of the areas of agreement and add a few comments of my own.
Even after the debacle of the fourth crusade many European people were in something of a Frenzy. For sure, none of the monarchs were interested in risking their fortunes, but the people especially some children wanted to recover Jerusalem. At the forefront of this movement was a 12 year old French kid named Stephen of Cloyes. That's about all we really know about him, his name.
Well, Stephen, we are told, had a vision or a dream wherein Christ appeared to him. The story is that Christ gave this kid a letter to King Philip of France which he was to deliver. The letter was an order, as it were, for Phil to organize a crusade. The kid got there, but Phil was not impressed and told him to go home and come back in a few years. This would probably deter most 12 year old kids, but not Stephen. He decided to go off and crusade on his own.
So he traveled across France on his way to the holy land preaching as he went. His preaching attracted bunches of people, many of whom followed him on his quest. In about one month he is said to have attracted some 30,000 followers. There were some adults, but most of his followers were kids like himself. Most of the adults just stood by and cheered as the parade passed through. We can suppose this gave the kids one heck of a rush. According to one account Stephen told his followers that they were protected by God and the Mediterranean would part to facilitate their passage. I can wonder who told this youngster the Jewish story of the Red Sea passage.
There is considerable disagreement about what happened after that. somehow, all of these youngsters disappeared. The most likely scenario seems to be that many of them dropped out or died along their march. However, a large number made it all the way to Marseilles. When the sea did not part for them, some merchants put them aboard some ships. Here the story gets even more vague, but there is reason to believe that some of the ships sank, killing all the children aboard. They were apparently the lucky ones. The others, according to one account were sold into slavery in North Africa. We will never know for sure.
That did not end the Children's Crusade. There was another child named Nicholas. This was an 11 year old German boy who also had a dream or vision about a visit from Christ. He was also to go forth and take Jerusalem for the Christians. He went through Germany and gathered up some 20,000 followers, many of whom were children. There were also some adults in this group.
This gang of believers had to cross the Alps to get to Italy. They were not as well prepared as Hannibal for that crossing and many of them froze to death. Some made it to Pisa where they also boarded ships. Again, that was the last anyone ever heard of them. We will never know for sure. A few made it to Rome where, in a magnanimous gesture, Innocent III relieve them of their vows. Ain't that swell?
I have to wonder abut the mentality of a people who would stand by and cheer kids as they marched off to certain disaster. Consider the mindset of these fanatic Christians who were so frenzied that they could see this insanity as a good thing. Consider how this tragedy must have come about. This was the gift that the Church of Rome had brought to Europe and to mankind. A frenzied, frothing fanaticism that was fatal to many humans and destructive to civilization for centuries.
Sure, we can say that Innocent III had nothing to do with initiating
or sponsoring this madness. With tongue in cheek we can say that
he had nothing at all to do with these children's crusade. My
question is, why? Why did he not stop them? He had the power.
He was the most powerful person in Europe and literally the ruler
over all other monarchs. Why did he let thousands of kids go forth
to certain doom? I believe he stood by because he thought these
kids would bring glory to him and his empire. I think unconscionable
is not a strong enough term for it. So much for Innocent's innocence.
It seems that King Phillip was the only light of reason in this
entire evil madness.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|