by
Damien F. Mackey
“Modern authors
tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong
identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors.
Penny Cole wrote,
for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against
the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim
infidel, are substantially identical”.”
Elizabeth Lapina
Elyse Sulkey compares - but also unfavorably
contrasts, with reference to Guibert of
Nogent - the Maccabees and the Crusaders, when she writes as follows in her
article, “Guibert of Nogent: The
Development of Rhetoric from Anti-Judaism to Anti-Semitism”:
During
the twelfth century, authors began to reach back into the Old Testament to find
biblical precedents for the crusaders, which eventually led to the use of the
Maccabees as “proto-crusaders.”54
The Maccabees were a Jewish rebel force active in the mid-second century BCE
who fought to reassert Judaism in Judea against the influence of Hellenism and
the Seleucid Empire.55 The Maccabees made an apt comparison for
crusaders because they used forced conversion and conquest to meet their aims,
much like the crusaders.56
In his early works, Guibert followed traditional models of exegetical debate
about the Old Testament.57
From
the beginning of The Deeds of God through the Franks, Guibert set out to ensure
that his audience understood that Jews, even the Maccabees, are lesser than
their Christian counterparts. In the introduction he stated that he wrote his
chronicle of the First Crusade because “[he] thought, if [he] may dare to say
this, that it deserved being told with greater dignity than all the histories
of Jewish warfare, if God would grant someone the ability to do this.”58 Guibert
thus makes it clear that despite their accomplishments, one of his goals in
writing The Deeds of God through the Franks was to elevate Christian crusaders
above the well-known Jewish warriors. He does this throughout The Deeds of God
through the Franks by demonstrating Jewish theological shortcomings, a
technique often employed in anti-Judaic writing.
Later,
Guibert further emphasized the higher status of the crusaders in comparison to
the Maccabees. He retold the sermon of Pope Urban II in Clermont declaring that
the pope had said, “If the Maccabees once deserved the highest praise for piety
because they fought for their rituals and their temple, then you too, O
soldiers of Christ, deserve such praise, for taking up arms to defend the
freedom of your country.”59
The pope continued on to tell the crusaders they were fighting the Antichrist.
In this instance, a comparison was being drawn that the Maccabees fought for
their own sake, while the crusaders fought for God as well as the protection of
their country.60
This comparison elevated the crusaders for their righteous, spiritual cause
while putting the Maccabees in a realm of corporeal selfishness.
Guibert
continued this critique of the Maccabees when he related the “despicable vanity
of the Jewish people.”61
Though Guibert excused Jewish fathers now celebrated by the Church, such as
David, Joshua, and Samuel, he accused the Jews of being a “wretched” people who
served God only to fill their own bellies.62
Guibert then declared that these “idolaters” were given their victories, while
the Christian crusaders were sacrificing to achieve theirs.63
While Guibert seemed to emphasize the disadvantages the crusaders faced, he
later said “if celestial help appeared long ago to the Maccabees fighting for
circumcision and the meat of swine, how much more did those who poured out
their blood for Christ, purifying the churches and propagating the faith,
deserve such help.”64
Guibert used these passages not only to demonstrate to his readers the weakness
of the Maccabees, who needed worldly comforts and divine help in order to
succeed, but to assure his readers that the crusaders would be victorious
because of their greater sacrifice and true devotion to God. Later in The Deeds
of God through the Franks, Guibert reminded us of his previous point by stating
that neither Ezra nor Judas Maccabeus suffered as much as the crusaders for
their victories.65
This passage also served to illustrate how the crusaders did not just possess purer
motive and devotion than the Maccabees, but actually surpassed the
accomplishments of their greatest warriors.66
[End of quote]
Region
of Erzurum conquered by Seleucids, by Seljuks
A JOURNEY INTO THE
HISTORY OF ERZURUM
The
proximity of Erzurum to the important centers of civilization in addition to
its natural conditions and geographical location made it one of the oldest
settlement centers of Anatolia. Some excavated stone artifacts take back the
history of the settlement in this area as early as the Paleolithic age.
The
Macedonian King Alexander conquered the region in the 4th century B.C which was
dominated by the Hurris, Hayasas, Urartians, Assirians, Cimmerians, Iskıts,
Meds and Persians in turn after 3000 B.C.This region was reined by the
Seleucids after the death of Alexander.Later on by the Roman Empire was the
scene of the bloody wars between the Romans and Parthes.With the division of
the Roman Empire into two parts in 395,Erzurum which was included in part of
the Byzantine Empire changed hands between the Byzantines and the Sassanides a
number of times. The invansion of the region by the Hun State which was
established on the north of the Blacksea between the years 295-398 was the
first entry of Turks into the region.In this period there was a city by the name
Karin in the location of Erzurum and another city by the name Erzen on the west
of the Erzurum Plateau in this period.Anatolius who was the general of the
Byzantine Emperor Theodosius 2(408-450) who himself had taken the Erzurum
region back from the Huns,had a castle built in the most strategic location of
the region where Karin was located against the attacks that could come from
Iran and changed the name of the city to Theodosiopolis. ....
Erzurum changed hands between
the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Arabs consisting of the Ummayads and the
Abbasids until the year 949.The Muslims named Theodopolis as “Kalikala” which
meant “Carpet City” Erzurum the population of which reached 200 thousand in the
7th century was one of the largest cities of the world at the time.The Seljuk
Turks who entered the Byzantine territory in order to conquer Eastern Anatolia
captured Erzen which was located on the west of the plain in 1048. The people
who ran from Erzen which had been ruined after the attacks,found rescue in
Kalikala and changed its name to Erzen. The original Erzen which that was
ruined after the attacks,was later named as Kara Erzen and in time as Karaz.
And the new Erzen was later referred to as Roman Erzen which in turn became
Erzurum, the modern name of the city. ...
[End
of quote]
Preceding the article, “Great Seljuq Empire”: http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Seljuq_Empire
one is cautioned: “Not to be confused with Seleucid
Empire”.
“The Great Seljuq Empire (Modern Turkish: Büyük Selçuklu Devleti;
Persian: دولت سلجوقیان)
was a medieval Turko-Persian[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Sunni Muslim empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz
Turks.[9]
The Seljuq Empire controlled a vast area stretching from the Hindu Kush
to eastern Anatolia and from Central
Asia to the Persian Gulf. From their homelands near the Aral sea,
the Seljuqs advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia before
eventually conquering eastern Anatolia”.
One might easily, however, confuse
the names, Seleuc-id and Seljuk, or Saltukid.
Just as one may be excused for
noticing many striking parallels between the Macabbees and the Crusaders,
fighting to regain the Holy City of Jerusalem.
Elizabeth Lapina provides further such similarities at:
THE
MACCABEES AND THE BATTLE OF ANTIOCH
….
Narratives of the Crusades and, more specifically, of the First Crusade
provide one of the most important clusters of references to the Maccabees –
primarily the Maccabean warriors, but also the Maccabean martyrs – in Christian
medieval sources. Many authors writing about the crusades used the stories of
both types of the Maccabees, the warriors and the martyrs, to interpret current
events in the Holy Land. There was a particularly large number of references in
connection with one event: the Battle of Antioch, fought between crusaders and
Muslims on June 28, 1098. Two more crucial references appear in the context of
two more battles fought by Prince Roger of Antioch in the vicinities of the
city: the Battle of Tall Danith (1115) and the Battle of the Field of Blood
(1119). Although there seems to be no direct connection between Antioch and the
Maccabean warriors, the city was of paramount importance for the Maccabean
martyrs. Although the locations of the martyrdom of seven Maccabean brothers,
their mother, and Priest Eleazar and of their initial burial (the remains
eventually found their way to Constantinople and Rome) are uncertain, a number
of patristic sources mention Antioch in connection with them.
There is no doubt that at one point Antioch was the center of the
Maccabean cult. In one of his sermons, St. Augustine of Hippo argues vehemently
that the Maccabean martyrs belong not to the Jewish but rather to the Christian
tradition. As proof, he refers to a church dedicated to the Maccabees in
Antioch. Augustine found it ironic and fitting that the city bearing nearly the
same name as King Antiochus IV, the persecutor of the Maccabean martyrs, would
celebrate those whom he persecuted.
In Late Antiquity, Antioch suffered an unprecedented series of disasters
from which it never recovered. The Crusades, however, signaled a rediscovery of
the city by western Christians. On their way to Jerusalem, crusaders stopped at
Antioch and besieged the city for eight months. Within days of its capture,
they found themselves besieged in turn by an impressive army assembled by
Kerbogha, atabeg of Mosul. The lack
of supplies was drastic, desertions multiplied, the majority of horses were
lost, and reports were made to the Byzantine emperor Alexius that the
annihilation of the crusaders was imminent. In desperation, unable to continue
their resistance in the long-depleted city, crusaders opted for a battle, in
the course of which they routed Kerbogha’s troops.
Apart from its purely military significance, the Battle of Antioch was at
the very center of medieval conceptions of the First Crusade. For many authors,
the triumph of crusaders at this particular point, when everything foreboded
disaster, proved the extent of God’s support for the Christian side. For many
contemporaries, this was made evident by a number of miracles reported in
connection with the battle: the discovery of the Holy Lance; a multiplication
of visions; and – most importantly for the present discussion – intervention of
a number of saints, perhaps an entire celestial army, on the side of crusaders.
In this manner, the battle would end up, to some degree, upstaging the capture
of Jerusalem a year later. It is unclear what exactly the crusaders and
medieval chroniclers of the Crusades knew about the importance of Antioch
within the cult of the Jewish martyrs in Late Antiquity. When describing the
city, crusading sources do not mention the Maccabees. One of the rare exceptions
is the so-called Charleville Poet, who claims that Antioch was very
ancient: “The book of Maccabees asserts its [Antioch’s] existence, when the
priest is said to have perished, next to Daphne.” The poet is apparently
alluding to the assassination of the pious Priest Onias in the vicinity of the
city, described in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:34). Still, it is
possible that crusaders learned about the ancient cult of the Maccabees at
Antioch during their interactions with the local population, which included a
sizable Christian minority. At least some of the chroniclers of the First
Crusade must have had access to St. Augustine’s above-mentioned sermon. And
they were undoubtedly familiar with King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whom a variety
of medieval sources present as an Antichrist-like figure. Just as St. Augustine
did centuries earlier, they must have been capable of constructing an
associative link between Antioch and the Maccabees through the intermediary of
Antiochus. Whatever the case might be, the connection between the city of
Antioch and the Maccabees displays a certain degree of continuity from Late
Antiquity to the crusading period. However, if in Late Antiquity it was the
Maccabean martyrs that attracted attention …
Damien Mackey’s
comment: On this subject, and for further Maccabean-Christian parallelism, see
my article:
Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom
Elizabeth Lapina continues:
… during the crusading period it was the Maccabean warriors.
In general, medieval writers of history were always eagerly looking for
biblical prototypes of later events and figures. While Maccabean martyrs hardly
resembled crusaders, Maccabean warriors did. Maccabean warriors shared the name
of the Maccabean martyrs, but, of course, not their fate, fighting Antiochus actively
under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Both the Maccabean warriors and crusaders
fought for control of the city of Jerusalem and took pride in the restoration
of holy sites. While the Maccabees fought against a Pagan enemy, crusaders
struggled against Muslims, whom they frequently associated with Pagans. Last
but not least, both profited from divine help on the battlefield. Modern authors
tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong
identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote,
for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against
the
persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim
infidel, are substantially identical.”
Indeed, Baldwin I, the second ruler and first Latin king of Jerusalem,
was called a “second Maccabee” in the laudatory inscription on his tombstone. Describing
the Battle of Tall Danith, in which Prince Roger of Antioch emerged victorious,
Fulcher of Chartres exclaims as follows: “For when did victory of fighters ever
depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon, and many others
who confided not in their own strength but in God and in that way overcame many
thousands.”
No comments:
Post a Comment