The Crusades And William Urban's Victims Of

The two sources selected for the ‘Secondary Source Assignment’ include Christopher Tyerman’s The Crusades (chapter six), and William Urban’s Victims of the Baltic Crusade. To start, Tyerman’s primary proposition contends that the Crusades were more than just a religious movement, as the process of executing the Crusades – extensive economic planning, recruitment, logistics, and other necessary plans – was needed to run each Crusade. The author proves this arguments through highlighting the differences in how people are enticed to join the Crusades (such as immunity from debts and lawsuits); how each Crusade was financed; and the non-religious motives of those Crusades for both the Crusaders and Papacy. The second source, written by William L. Urban, primarily argues that despite emphasise Western culture places on victims, victimization of the Baltic people did not occur in the case of the Baltic Crusades. The author primarily supports his thesis by criticizing the approach of other historians on three topics: the outcomes and intentions of the Crusade; scope of
the Crusade (European instead of German); and the comparisons made between the Baltic Crusades and colonization of North America.
In addition to contradicting other historians, Urban elaborates on these three topics, and uses them to prove how the Baltic (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian) people were not victimized.

Now that the thesis and arguments of both sources are revealed, it is important to analyse the genre, approach, strengths and weaknesses, and the implications of those strengths on weaknesses for each source. To start, Tyerman’s novel, The Crusades, falls under popular history, and the approach is not defined by one category: social, political, financial and religious approaches
are all used. This is also the primary strength of this source. The fact that Tyerman looks at the Crusades and supports his argument from multiple different angles means that this source is useful for being a starting point for a research essay, as it provides a broad understanding of the Crusades in general. For example, if one wished to investigate the impact of finance during the Crusades by King Louis VII on the lives of Crusaders returning home, this source will address the fact that Crusaders were often forced to mortgage their home – often at very high interest rates – in order to finance the Crusade; and when they returned home, they would not be able to re-purchase their home. Moreover, this source is excellent at analyzing the effects on various ‘business’ side of Crusading on the Crusaders themselves, the conquered, and on the actual outcome of each Crusade; for instance, the effects of Crusading preaching campaigns, wherein preachers often walk around with a large canvas depicting a Muslim cavalryman trampling the Holy Sepulchre, include the fact that it created anti-Islamic ideology among the Crusaders. This cause-and-effect relationship is extremely useful for providing an understanding of the effects of different forces of the Crusades, thereby providing a basis for which to do further, more specific research. This source, however, also has one serious limitation. Throughout the source, there is no use of any primary sources. Without historical accounts such as speeches, letters, diaries, and other mean by which to prove a point, the text feels shallow. Likewise, a lack of primary sources means that the arguments poised are unsupported by hard, factual evidence. This is important because if this source were to be used in an essay, the writer would find it difficult to use the arguments Tyerman suggests, as they lack the support of primary sources and thus the evidence to support their argument. Overall, Tyerman’s text provides an excellent general understanding of the Crusades and serves as a starting point from which to do further research, yet lacks the depth of other sources due to the absence of primary source support.

The second secondary source, Victims of the Baltic Crusade, can be classified as a scholarly article due to the extensive use of primary sources as support for arguments, and the detailed nature of the article. The approach used is cultural, as Urban compares the cultural impact on the Baltic Crusade on the Baltic people, and argues against the notion that the Baltic Crusades were comparable to the colonization of North America. The main strength of this article, which is lacking in the first source, is the fact that primary analysis is used to support Urban’s arguments. For example, one major argument addressed includes the fact that the Crusaders were welcomed by the Lithuanian people, as they were threatened by the Estonians in the North. To support this, Urban uses a letter written by Henry of Livonia, depicting the capture and execution of Estonians, to support the notion that the Lithuanians and Estonians were in conflict when the Crusaders arrived. Using a primary source as evidence makes an argument much stronger, and therefore a strength in Urban’s article. However, a weakness of this source includes the fact that it is much focused on a very specific aspect regarding the Crusades, meaning that unless a researcher knows exactly what they want to research, this source does provide the big picture. Therefore, this source is best used as a way to gather very detailed information about a specific topic within the Crusades; it will best be used after general research has been conducted.

Despite the differences between the two sources in terms of genre, approach, and advantages and disadvantages, both sources serve a place in essay creation. An essay topic that does not relate to the arguments proposed by both authors, yet can be developed due to facts contained in each source, is the notion that the Crusades were not a religiously motivated campaign; rather, the purpose of the Crusades merely served economic and political purposes for both the Papacy and political leaders, and overall has adverse effects on the average citizens. There is a significant amount of evidence in both sources that can be used to support this argument. To start with The Crusades, the fact that “the cross had become a requisite in diplomatic exchanges” means that in order to establish diplomatic relations, one had to be in allegiance of the cross. Thus, the cross can be seen as an excuse to exclude nations from diplomatic relations. This fact and implication is could be used for the first argument within the essay – that the Crusades merely occurred to serve economic and political purposes – as it provides the point, evidence, and an implication supporting the argument can be drawn. Another useful point in this source is fact that Crusaders had special immunity from interest and debt, which was enforced by ecclesiastical courts. This would support the essay topic because it supports the fact that the average citizen was negatively affected by the Crusades, as proving some citizens (the Crusaders) with special privileges unfairly favours them and thus mistreats all other citizens. Therefore, this could be a specific point (Crusaders were unfairly favoured), evidence (no interest and debts), and significance (favourable treatment of some members of society negatively effects those who are not favoured) for the second argument of the essay –the Crusades adversely effected society. However, unlike Urban’s article, this source has some limitations with regards to primary source support. As mentioned, no primary sources are consulted in this source; therefore, evidence to support the arguments in this essay is lacking – primary source evidence constitutes a stronger argument. Without this evidence, using points like the ones above may appear weak, as there is no specific evidence to support them. Thus, it is necessary to consult sources which contain primary sources; this is where Urban’s Victims of the Baltic Crusade is important. In terms of the first argument of this essay, this source mentions that the Baltic Crusades were a war of conquest, and that German knights committed atrocities in Estonia – including robbery, murder, pillaging and rape. This can be used as a part of argument one – as the Crusade could be interpreted as a political motivation of the Germans to conquer more land. However, unlike Tyerman’s source, this source provides even more insight: it contains primary source evidence to supports points made within the text. This primary source is an excerpt from Henry of Livonia, who is commenting on the atrocities committed on his people. Therefore, this source provides a point and evidence for the first argument of the essay, and analysis favouring the argument can be conducted in order to further support the argument. Moreover, the source mentions that before the Germanic Crusades, feudalism was not relevant in the Baltic region. This fact can be used to support the argument that the Crusades negatively affected the average citizen (argument two), as feudalism poorly treated serfs, the majority of citizens. Thus, for this essay, this point can be used to construct the second point within argument two, with a point (the Baltic Crusade introduced Feudalism); evidence of how this negatively affected society (the fact the Feudalism essentially enslaves the majority of the population); and implication (what this means for the Crusades; implies that the Crusades negatively effected society). Notwithstanding the usefulness of this source, this source is too narrow in scope to provide enough points to constitute an essay. In order to fully develop this essay, primary sources pertaining to the topics covered in the Tyerman’s source would need to be analyzed – that would provide strong evidence to support points derived from the first secondary source. In conclusion, the two sources provide solid points, evidence, and implications that can be used to develop an essay topic that does not relate entirely too either source; however, in order to fully develop this essay, other sources – both primary and secondary – need to be consulted.