‘The consequences of the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071 were the main factors behind the calling of the First Crusade by Urban II in 1095.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2021
Topic
The Age of the Crusades, c1071-1204
👑Complete Model Essay
‘The consequences of the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071 were the main factors behind the calling of the First Crusade by Urban II in 1095.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The First Crusade: Was Manzikert the Decisive Factor?
The First Crusade, launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II, marked a turning point in the history of both Western Europe and the Byzantine East. While the Byzantine plea for assistance against the Seljuk Turks following their victory at Manzikert in 1071 appears significant, it is crucial to acknowledge the complexity of factors influencing Urban's decision. This essay will evaluate the validity of the view that the consequences of the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert were the main factors behind the calling of the First Crusade.
Arguments Supporting Manzikert's Influence
The impact of Manzikert on the Byzantine Empire and its resonance in Urban's call cannot be understated. Alexius I Comnenus, who ascended to the Byzantine throne after a period of turmoil partly fueled by Manzikert, desperately needed military aid. His appeals to the West, emphasizing the Turkish threat not only to Byzantium but also to Constantinople itself, likely resonated with Urban. Furthermore, Urban's predecessor, Gregory VII, had already entertained the idea of a Western expedition to aid the Byzantines in the aftermath of Manzikert. This suggests a degree of continuity in papal policy and concern for Eastern Christians.
Furthermore, accounts of Urban's speech at Clermont in 1095, where he urged the mobilization of Christian forces, highlight the precarious situation of Constantinople and the plight of fellow Christians in the East. This, coupled with the symbolic blow of Jerusalem falling to the Seljuks in 1071, shortly after Manzikert, could have strengthened the urgency for military action.
Challenging the Centrality of Manzikert
However, attributing the First Crusade solely to the repercussions of Manzikert risks overlooking other contributing factors. Urban's delay of several months in responding to Alexius's plea and his focus on the liberation of Jerusalem, a goal not necessarily shared by the Byzantines, suggest broader papal motivations. The papacy had been embroiled in power struggles with secular rulers, particularly over investiture rights. Launching a crusade, especially one linked to the Peace of God movement, could be interpreted as a means for Urban to assert papal supremacy and channel Western knights towards a common enemy, thus consolidating his authority.
Moreover, the Seljuk threat to Byzantium, while real, was not immediately dire after Manzikert. Alexius had, in fact, collaborated with the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah to manage the Turkish presence in Anatolia. This complicates the narrative of an imminent Turkish conquest. Additionally, the persistent division between the Eastern and Western Churches, a schism unrelated to Manzikert, might have motivated Urban to assert papal authority over the East and potentially bridge the religious divide.
Conclusion
While the Byzantine appeal for help, stemming from the consequences of Manzikert, undoubtedly catalyzed the First Crusade, ascribing the event solely to this factor would be simplistic. Urban's papacy operated within a complex web of internal and external pressures. While the Turkish threat was real, it was arguably less a direct motivation for Urban than a convenient catalyst for achieving broader papal objectives. The First Crusade, therefore, emerges as a result of intertwined factors: the genuine plight of Eastern Christians threatened by Turkish expansion, the papacy's desire to solidify its authority and promote religious unity, and the opportunistic exploitation of a geopolitical context shaped in part by the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
The Consequences of Manzikert and the First Crusade
This essay will assess the validity of the view that the consequences of the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071 were the main factors behind the calling of the First Crusade by Urban II in 1095.
Arguments Supporting the View
Firstly, Alexius’ appeal for help from the West emphasised the threat posed by the Turks to Byzantium. This threat had intensified in the years following Manzikert, culminating in the capture of Nicaea in 1097. This danger, including the possibility of Constantinople falling to the Turks, was likely a key factor in Urban II’s decision to call the Crusade.
Secondly, Pope Gregory VII’s letters in 1074, urging Western knights to assist the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII, provide historical context. Urban’s rhetoric and theological arguments closely resemble those of Gregory, suggesting a continuity of papal strategy. He continued the pursuit of a unified Christendom against the encroaching Muslim threat.
Thirdly, the political instability in Constantinople following Manzikert, exemplified by Alexius’ own coup, also contributed to his decision to seek Western aid. This political weakness may have prompted him to appeal for reinforcements, seeing it as a strategic necessity.
Fourthly, Urban’s preaching at Clermont highlighted the threat to the Byzantine Empire and the need for Christian solidarity. This focus aligns with the consequences of Manzikert, where the Seljuk Turks had begun to pose a significant threat to Byzantium’s territorial integrity.
Fifthly, although Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for centuries, its fall to the Seljuk Turks in 1071, soon after Manzikert, may have served as a catalyst. This event likely reinforced the urgency for Urban to act, particularly as the Holy City became a symbol of Christian suffering under Muslim rule.
Arguments Challenging the View
Firstly, Urban waited several months after receiving Alexius’ appeal before calling the Crusade. He focused heavily on the need to capture Jerusalem, a goal that was not a primary concern for the Byzantines. This suggests that Urban’s motivations extended beyond simply assisting Byzantium.
Secondly, the Papacy’s ongoing power struggles with secular rulers in the West provide a different perspective. Urban’s call for a Crusade could be seen as a way to assert papal supremacy and expand papal authority. This view aligns with the Peace of God movement, which sought to limit violence and assert papal control over secular rulers.
Thirdly, the Seljuk Turks did not initially pose a direct threat to Constantinople after Manzikert. Alexius’ cooperation with Malik Shah helped to control Turkish expansion into Anatolia. This suggests that the immediate threat to Byzantium was not as severe as portrayed by Urban.
Fourthly, the rivalry between the Papacy and Eastern Orthodox Church could have played a role. Urban may have seen the Crusade as an opportunity to assert his authority over the Eastern Church, furthering the schism between the two branches of Christianity.
Conclusion
While the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert undoubtedly had consequences, attributing it as the primary factor behind the First Crusade is a simplification. While Alexius’ appeal for help highlighted the growing threat posed by the Seljuk Turks, other factors, such as papal ambitions and the desire to recapture Jerusalem, played a significant role in Urban II’s decision. Therefore, while the consequences of Manzikert undoubtedly contributed to the Crusade, they were not the sole determining factor.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments supporting the view:
Alexius’ appeal for help to the West emphasised the threat posed by the Turks to Byzantium which had developed in the years after Manzikert – threatening Constantinople itself.
In 1074, Pope Gregory VII had issued letters asking for Western leaders and knights to go as part of a Papal army to the East to help the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII in the aftermath of Manzikert – Urban can be seen to have been following in the footsteps of his predecessor – he used very similar rhetoric and theological arguments.
One of the consequences of Manzikert was a prolonged period of political upheaval in Constantinople. Alexius had launched his own coup as part of this to come to power and it is believed that his own political weaknesses prompted him to ask the West for help.
Accounts of Urban’s preaching at Clermont suggest that a large part of his message concerned the threat posed to Constantinople and the need to help fellow Christians.
Whilst Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands for 400 years, the defeat at Manzikert had been fairly swiftly followed by the Turks taking over the Holy City in 1071 – thus this might have factored into Urban’s call in 1095.
Arguments challenging the view:
Urban waited several months after receiving Alexius’ appeal for help before delivering his call to arms at Clermont in November 1095. He also seems to have focused heavily on the need to capture Jerusalem – which does not seem to have been a Byzantine priority.
Since the 1070s, the Papacy had been struggling with secular rulers in the West over authority and the rights of secular rulers to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs. Urban’s call, with its links to the Peace of God movement, could be viewed as an attempt to exert Papal supremacy.
The Turks did not initially pose a direct threat to the Byzantines after Manzikert – additionally, Alexius had worked in conjunction with Malik Shah to control the Turkish spread into Anatolia.
The Pope may have been more concerned with trying to advance his own superiority over the Eastern Orthodox Church. This doctrinal division had nothing to do with Byzantium’s situation after Manzikert.
Students may argue that it was a Byzantine appeal for help which sparked the Crusade, but that the Papacy was probably more concerned with its own agendas in the calling of the Crusade. The threat posed by the Turks in the aftermath of Manzikert can be much debated. Students may wish to write about internal Byzantine politics in some detail, but this should not be expected. Any relevant material will be rewarded.