How did the behavior of the medieval Crusaders and the early modern Conquistadors contrast with the "monastic"

Question

How did the behavior of the medieval Crusaders and the early modern Conquistadors contrast with the "monastic" or "ascetic" ideal of early medieval Europe?.

Answer 1

An interesting question, but a difficult one. There is a temptation to simply say that neither the Crusaders nor the Conquistadors exhibited true Christian behaviour, let alone the monastic ideal, but that would simplistic and unfair.

The first question, then, becomes what was the "monastic ideal"? In the early (pre-medieval) church, monastics were hermits (hence the "mon" in "monastic"). They left ordinary life in order to pursue a dedicated life of prayer. However, not everyone is suited to such a solitary existence, and mental health issues often arose. Starting in the 4th century, "cenobitic" (from the Greek words for "common life") monasticism arose. The idea was still to separate oneself from the hustle and bustle of "the world" and devote oneself to prayer, but in a community setting. Since the medieval era is generally accepted to start in the 5th century with the end of the Western Roman Empire, this form of monasticism is the one that you're probably refering to.

The "classic" model of cenobitic monasticism is the Rule of St. Benedict, laid down in the 7th century. It rested a motto, "Peace" and a tradition, "Pray and Work." Benedict wrote that his aim was to create a "school" where those who chose it could advance in "life, love of God, and faith." He outlined a number of precepts including not showing favouritism, self-sufficiency of the community, moderation, humility, hospitality, education, and the importance of manual labour.

One important aspect it that those who joined the community were to have no private property (without leave from the abott), but the community was to provide all necessities. This is sometimes summed up as a vow of poverty, but the monks were not "poor" as we often understand poverty (ie. privation); they simply wished to separate themselves from the temptations of riches, or as we would call it today, materialism.

This last point is the easiest one to see the difference with the Conquistdors. "Conquistador" means "conqueror" and they went to the Americans and to the East Indies specifically to conqueror and get rich. That they continued to explore for exploitable commodities (gold, spice, slaves) rather than settle and build colonies (like the French and English were doing in the more northerly parts of the Americas) also shows a marked remove the from the monastic emphasis of the labour of one's own hands.

The Crusaders are a bit more complicated, since there were at least nine Crusades in the Holy Lands over a 300 year period, plus a number of other conflicts within Europe that were labled "crusade" (in the Baltic, against the Tartars, in the Balkans, in Aragon, Alexandria, against the Hussites, and the Swedish conquest of Finland, to say nothing of the "Albigenian Crusade" and the "Children's Crusade"). Obviously the motivations were different and as a result the behaviours were different.

If we look only at the First Crusade of 1095-1099 (perhaps the only one that deserves the name "crusade") the motivations seem to be noble - liberation of Christian bretheren under seige by the Seljuk Turks, and the "rewards" talked about are of a spiritual, rather than temporal or material nature (indeed, a great many nobles bankrupted themselves in order to supply their expeditions and take the cross). Poorer knights were expected to go only if they could support themselves on the alms of others. Furthermore, a number of "hospitaller" orders were created to care for the poor, sick, wounded and dying - which fits in with the monastic impulse to hospitality. However, they were, after all, going to *war*, which obviously violated the monastic motto of "peace." So it's a complicated question.

Later crusades, and espeically the European "crusades" moved even farther afield from the monastic ideals.