The History of the Crusades (vol. 1 of 3)Michaud, J. Fr. (Joseph Fr.)
History
The History of the Crusades (vol. 1 of 3)
Michaud, J. Fr. (Joseph Fr.)
Crusades
Whilst the empire of the East approached near to its fall, and appeared
sapped by time and corruption, the institutions of the West were
in their infancy. The empire and the laws of Charlemagne no longer
existed. Nations had no relations with each other, and mistaking their
political interests, made wars without considering their consequences
or their dangers, and concluded peace, without being at all aware
whether it was advantageous or not. Royal authority was nowhere
sufficiently strong to arrest the progress of anarchy and the abuses
of feudalism. At the same time that Europe was full of soldiers, and
covered with strong castles, the states themselves were without support
against their enemies, and had not an army to defend them. In the
midst of general confusion, there was no security but in camps and
fortresses, by turns the safeguards and the terror of the towns and
the country. The largest cities held out no asylum to liberty, and
the life of man was reckoned so trifling an object, that impunity for
murder could be purchased with a few pieces of money. Frequently, to
detect crime, the judges had recourse to water, fire, and iron; upon
the blind and dumb evidence of the elements, victims were condemned to
death; it was sword in hand that justice was invoked; it was by the
sword that the reparation of wrongs and injuries was to be obtained. No
one would then have been understood who would have spoken of the rights
of nature, or the rights of man; the language of the barons and the
lords comprised only such words as treated of _war_; war was the only
science, the only policy of either princes or states.
Nevertheless, this barbarism of the nations of the West did not at all
resemble that of the Turks, whose religion and manners repelled every
species of civilization or cultivation, nor that of the Greeks, who
were nothing but a corrupted and degenerated people. Whilst the one
exhibited all the vices of a state almost savage, and the other all
the corruption of decay; something heroical and generous was mingled
with the barbarous manners of the Franks, which resembled the passions
of youth, and gave promise of a better future. The Turks were governed
by a gross barbarism, which made them despise all that was noble or
great; the Greeks were possessed by a learned and polished barbarism,
which filled them with disdain for heroism or the military virtues.
The Franks were as brave as the Turks, and set a higher value on glory
than any other people. The principle of _honour_, which gave birth to
chivalry in Europe, directed their bravery, and sometimes assumed the
guise of justice and virtue.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account