Crusades

[Aloysius]

yeah I like your sig as well.

however, your position here on the crusades itself is slightly skewed. if there were no cultural or religious differences, and it was just Europeans and Arabs, what would you think? if European vacationers kept getting killed when they went to their favorite vacation spot, would Europe have a just claim against the Arab nations that allowed that to happen, or actually sponsored such attacks on the European vactationers? Arabs that had just conquered the whole middle east, north africa and beyond, now pokin their way through Spain... what is Europe to do? see, much of the secular opposition to the crusades stems from their anti-religious attitude, as soon as religion enters the mix it starts being more "irrrational" and such..

if it were just two groups of people, with one threatening to invade the other and killing its vacationers, I don't think you'd have a problem with the Europeans fighting back.

but since its two religions, the one threatening to invade and convert the other while killing its pilgrims, you have a problem with Catholics fighting back in the Name of God.

I see it all the time... like some secularists that don't oppose the death penalty would talk about how horrible it was for European Catholic Nations to burn heretics at the stake but they don't have a problem executing people for treason... essentially the same thing relatively

there were bad things done in the crusades that were not justifiable, but as a whole there was just cause; it was certainly a defensive war with the philosophy that the best defense is a good offence. The muslims, however, did begin the offensive... they were killing Christian pilgrims; they had already invaded and taken over what used to be Christian North Africa. they were in Spain, advancng against Europe basically from both sides... so we fought back and when we crushed them we began to look like the bad guys (and a in our slaughters we were the bad guys), but the overall cause was a just cause and we did succeed in defending Catholic Europe from Muslim Arab invasion

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

The crusades were moral, just, defensive wars against Islamic incursions in the east. The concept of them as motivated by anything other than religious fervor has largely been proven to be incorrect in most modern historical circles.

First and foremost, we must remember that in the middle ages, ethnicity was not the primary method of determining relationships. Religion was the national identity of the middle ages. As such, an attack against any Christian was an attack against "Christendom" that is, the entire body of Christians in the world.

Secondly, that attack did in fact take place over a period of four centuries. One could argue that the Muslims owned the land they lived on. They had taken it from the Byzantine empire in the 7th century and had been retained by them ever since. As such, the crusades as a reaction to those incursions could be seen as invalid.

However, the first crusade was justified because of the attacks of the Turks, more appropriately the Seljukids, into the region of Anatolia, a Byzantine holding at the time. Weakened by years of constant strife and poor emperors, the Byzantine empire needed help. Emperor Alexius Komnenos, the first of the Komnenoi emperors, asked the pope to send troops to help relieve the situation. The response to this cry for help was the first crusade.

Now, one might ask, "If this was about the Seljukid invasions, then why attack Jerusalem? What did that have to do with anything?"

I have several thoughts in response to this valid concern. Firstly, pilgrims had been harassed by the Turkic rulers of the region, and this was becoming a problem for the Christians. Secondly, the Turks who were attacking the Byzantines were part of the same empire which controlled Jerusalem. Thirdly, my personal theory is that the western Christians always wanted to retake Jerusalem. Forgive the comparison, but for a murder to take place, one needs motive, means, and opportunity.

The Christians had plenty of motive for wanting to regain Jerusalem. However, until the increased power of the papacy seen in the 11th century, they didn't have the central authority figure to give them the means to make this attack. Furthermore, the 11th century saw a boom in population and economy that was going to continue, and greatly increase over the next two centuries. This gave them further means to accomplish the goal. The opportunity came when the Pope offered a just war to fight back against Muslim incursions.

So, we can see that the first crusade was a just, defensive war. It was launched to defend the Byzantine empire and to open up the holy land to Christian pilgrimage. In addition, it was intended to reclaim the holy land from those who had conquered it from the Christians to begin with. Every subsequent crusade was even more just and more defensive. Why? Because each was launched in response to Muslim attacks on the new Christian territories in the region.

One might argue that the Muslims were simply trying to reclaim their own lands. However, that doesn't really hold water. In the middle ages, lands changed hands all of the time. Therefore, a war motivated solely to reclaim land loss wasn't seen as just. Had the first crusade been launched merely to steal Saracen lands, it would have been grossly illegal.

Finally, to debunk the notion of Crusaders as money hungry or power hungry, I have to add some important information. Firstly, most Christians took out loans and sold property to even raise enough money to go and fight. Almost nobody made a profit, and, as near as can be told from the source documents, nobody expected to.

Also, the notion that they wanted to steal Saracen lands is inappropriate. The documents clearly show that nearly all of the crusaders immediately returned to europe once the crusade was completed. In fact, so few stayed behind that it caused a manpower shortage which would continue to plague the crusader states for many years to come.

I hope I have been able to show that the crusades were not examples of Christian aggression, but rather defensive wars fought in support of the Byzantine empire. The 20th century produced a great deal of negative publicity for the crusades, and it was popular to ignore the piety of crusaders and see them as villains. At the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, leading historians have revised that notion and are instead seeing the crusaders for what they were: men motivated by religious piety, fighting a war they saw as just.

Edited May 8, 2005 by Ordo.Teutonicorum

[MichaelFilo]

That is quite interesting, and certainly insightful. But let me play Devil's advocate:
How do you justify the Crusades if the reason to launch them, to protect the Byzantine empire was not only met, but the exact oppisite was induced, at the hands of the crusaders?

God bless,
Mikey

[ardillacid]

Perhaps because the crusaders were lied to by the heir apparent. So they sacked the city. Not exactly a just retribution, but some sort of retaliation would be expected.

(plus this was the 4th crusade)

(I'm assuming you were talking about the sack of constantinople, though i could be wrong)

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 8 2005, 01:08 AM'] That is quite interesting, and certainly insightful. But let me play Devil's advocate:
How do you justify the Crusades if the reason to launch them, to protect the Byzantine empire was not only met, but the exact oppisite was induced, at the hands of the crusaders?

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Well it is quite simple really - and by that I mean hideously complex. Hold on to your miters...

The fourth crusade was launched and targeted at recovering Jerusalem from the Muslims. However, the huge numbers of troops needed to be transported to the holy land somehow. Well, the Venetians of course had a huge navy. So, the leaders of the expedition signed a contract with the venetians based on their overall force and the amount of money the overall force could pay.

When the meeting time came around, some people went by a different route, or chartered their own vessels. So, they didn't have the money to pay the Venetians. Now, the Venetians of course weren't about to let the crusaders go back on the contract. So, a deal was made with the Doge of Venice. The crusaders would attack the Hungarian city of Zara which had just been recently captured from the Venetians.

The people of Zara had made a pact with the pope, knowing that the Venetians would attack. This document, signed by Innocent III, threatened excommunication from anyone who would attack the city. It is important now to make a distinction between the rank and file crusaders and the leaders. The leaders knew about this, the rank and file never did.

Well, some of the leaders immediately turned around and went home. Some, swayed by the Doge, and their desire to finish the crusade after having wasted so much money, decided to stay and attack Zara.

After sacking Zara, things get even weirder. The crusaders are approached by the Byzantine Alexius whose father, Isaac II, had been overthrown by his own brother. The Crusaders weren't sure whether they should attack other Christians, but the doge saw an opportunity because he hated the Byzantines. Furthermore, Alexius had been illegally deposed, and made a strong case.

So, the Crusaders went to Constantinople. Far from being greeted warmly, the Byzantines preferred a usurper to the Latins. However, Emperor Alexius III, the usurper, fled in terror. Alexius IV then took the throne. He had promised the Crusaders the money they needed to pay off their huge debt to the Venetian Doge. So they waited for the money. And waited. And waited. And waited.

While they were waiting, the citizens of Constantinople began to attack and harass the crusaders. So, Alexius IV ordered them to go back to the other side of the golden horn, and to wait longer. Then, he was strangled by Alexius Ducas, soon to be Alexius V.

When that happened, it enraged the Crusaders who had spent so much time and money helping Alexius IV, giving him back his power, and waiting for the reward they had never been given. So, in a rage, they sacked Constantinople. All the while, the rank and file never knew that they had been excommunicated for the attack on Zara.

So you can see, it isn't so clear cut an issue. The crusaders were doing their best to solve moral issues that were hurled at them. Just because the end result was the sacking of Constantinople doesn't mean that was what was intended. I don't think the crusaders ever anticipated such an action, even up to the death of Alexius IV.

[phatcatholic]

i was bored......

[b]The Crusades[/b]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm"]Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3387"]Crusade Myths[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3209"]Crusade Propaganda: The Abuse of Christianity's Holy Wars[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3225"]Crusading They Went: The Deeds and Misdeeds of Our Spiritual Kin[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3099"]Rethinking the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3089"]Objective Analysis of the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3307"]The Battle Over the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=968"]The Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3095"]History and Apologetic for the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3386"]The Crusades and Their Critics[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3366"]The Real History of the Crusades[/url]
--[url="ftp://members.aol.com/kcc1tim/Crusades.txt"]The Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=148"]"If I Forget You, Oh Jerusalem": The Truth About the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/crusades.html"]Apologia: The Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/crusades2.html"]Crusades: Truth and Black Legend[/url]
--[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-maddenprint110201.html"]Crusade Propaganda[/url]
--[url="http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/historian/crusade.html"]The Meaning of the Crusade[/url]

[Q the Ninja]

How do we justify the Fourth Crusade?

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 11:16 AM'] How do we justify the Fourth Crusade? [/quote]
I already did. Read the thread.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Wow. You people are actually trying to lump all the crusades into one big happy pile?


Please, please, please go read a book.


The fourth "crusade" started out rightly enough and went terribly wrong. No real historian denies that.

But to try and lump it with the first crusade (the only REAL crusade) in terms of justification is not only ludicrious but shows a real ignorance of the subject.

I wish people would quit talking about things they know nothing about.


Ninja out.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Just because they didn't "intend" to sack Constantinople doesn't mean that it's justified.

In the end, those crusaders remained excommunicated for the final sacking.

Therefore, unjustified.



On a separate note, I appreciate your choice of screen name Teutonic one. Just did a term paper one them. Kudos!

[MichaelFilo]

I think that suffeciently answers the question.

God bless,
Mikey

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 01:42 PM'] Just because they didn't "intend" to sack Constantinople doesn't mean that it's justified.

In the end, those crusaders remained excommunicated for the final sacking.

Therefore, unjustified.



On a separate note, I appreciate your choice of screen name Teutonic one. Just did a term paper one them. Kudos! [/quote]
It isn't a religiously justified operation, true enough. But at the same time, the crusaders were still not acting from the bloodthirsty greed everyone assumes. And, as we can see, the Church excommunicated those responsible, thusly illustrating the justness of crusades in general.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 8 2005, 11:38 AM'] I already did. Read the thread. [/quote]
[quote]...So, the Crusaders went to Constantinople. Far from being greeted warmly, the Byzantines preferred a usurper to the Latins. However, Emperor Alexius III, the usurper, fled in terror. Alexius IV then took the throne. He had promised the Crusaders the money they needed to pay off their huge debt to the Venetian Doge. So they waited for the money. And waited. And waited. And waited.

While they were waiting, the citizens of Constantinople began to attack and harass the crusaders. So, Alexius IV ordered them to go back to the other side of the golden horn, and to wait longer. Then, he was strangled by Alexius Ducas, soon to be Alexius V.

When that happened, it enraged the Crusaders who had spent so much time and money helping Alexius IV, giving him back his power, and waiting for the reward they had never been given. So, in a rage, they sacked Constantinople. All the while, the rank and file never knew that they had been excommunicated for the attack on Zara.

So you can see, it isn't so clear cut an issue. The crusaders were doing their best to solve moral issues that were hurled at them. Just because the end result was the sacking of Constantinople doesn't mean that was what was intended. I don't think the crusaders ever anticipated such an action, even up to the death of Alexius IV.
[/quote]

You tried to justify based on the intention of the crusade, but the intention does not equal the act itself. The fact that they stopped in Constantinople and sacked the city shows that it cannot be just.

The crusade never made it to the intended stop, and so we cannot look at intention as making it just.

Also, while the crusaders were in town, they sacked the town. Now, however you look at it, there's no way that this action can be justified. That's what I'm getting at, you can't really justify this crusade, but maybe it could have ended up a just one had the crusaders not ended up in the wrong place.

(PS I learned about the sacking from a Byzantine scholar.

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 04:41 PM']

You tried to justify based on the intention of the crusade, but the intention does not equal the act itself. The fact that they stopped in Constantinople and sacked the city shows that it cannot be just.

The crusade never made it to the intended stop, and so we cannot look at intention as making it just.

Also, while the crusaders were in town, they sacked the town. Now, however you look at it, there's no way that this action can be justified. That's what I'm getting at, you can't really justify this crusade, but maybe it could have ended up a just one had the crusaders not ended up in the wrong place.

(PS I learned about the sacking from a Byzantine scholar. [/quote]
Well I have quite a great fondness for the Byzantines myself, and I have read Niketas Choniates' assessment of things in addition to Villehardouin and the European side of things.

I don't think the sacking of Constantinople was religiously justified. However, I wanted to show that it was a complicated issue, involving lots of missteps, wrong turns, bad advice, and miscommunications. Also, even as someone who loves the Byzantines, they are more at fault than the crusaders on this one, in my opinion. Assigning blame is difficult, but they chose to involve outsiders in their own politics.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 8 2005, 02:19 PM'] It isn't a religiously justified operation, true enough. But at the same time, the crusaders were still not acting from the bloodthirsty greed everyone assumes. And, as we can see, the Church excommunicated those responsible, thusly illustrating the justness of crusades in general. [/quote]
Okay, this I can possibly see, but my whole point so far was to keep from lumping the crusades together.

I still think they sacked the city...

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 04:44 PM'] Okay, this I can possibly see, but my whole point so far was to keep from lumping the crusades together.

I still think they sacked the city... [/quote]
Yes. They sacked the city. But that's what medieval armies do to conquered cities - they sack them. It is very standard practice and not at all unusual. We might see it as cruel and overly violent, but in doing so we aren't understanding the warfare of the times.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Niccolò' date='May 7 2005, 07:08 PM'] Unless, of course, if Europe is again threatened by the Turks...which I don't see happening in the near future. [/quote]
I could see it happening very easily, now thatthe turksof central asia have been freed from Russian domination combined with the surge of Turkish nationalism currently experianced in Turkey a Turkish Muslim resergence is certianly possible, but I doubt any Martelswill be in Europe to meet them, and I am sure there will be no Godfrey's to counter attack. Europe is virtually worthless now.

[Don John of Austria]

The Fourth Crusade was as all of the Crusades a Good and Holy thing, However like many Good and Holy things ( such as theological studies which turn to heresy) it was perverted by the Evil One and the weakness of men. In Penalty the Crusaders themselves where Excommunicated, That does not render the Crusade unjustified, it renders the act of the Crusade unjustified. I don't see whatthis really has to do with anything as the 4th Crusade is never what is at issue when people talk about the Crusades being justifiable or not, they are talking about the intent to take the Holy Land from the infidel and the fact thatthe West was not only prepared to fight for the Faith but that the Church offered Indulgences for the act of fighting on Crusade.

May those Crusaders martyred for the Faith pray for us.


Of Course the Crusades a where Justified, anyone who argues differantly is either completly ignorant of reality or a hellbound heritic, or perhaps both. Manzekirt wasn';t a welcome over party that got out of Hand, it was a massive battle from which the greeks never recovered, the Emporer of Byzantium appealed to the Pope for aid agianst the invaders; the Pope sent it. There has never in all of history been more justifiable wars than the Crusades.


Any Catholic who denies their justifiablity is simply a heritic as they where infallably called in Council repetedly. God is merciful, but God is also a warrior, and he called his followers to War, end of story.

[Niccolò]

I see Turkey becoming more of an extension of secular Europe rather than a new base for Islamic expansionism. Of course the invasion of Cyprus and the suppression of the Kurds shows that the Turks indeed have a streak of nationalism in them, but I doubt that would turn to expansionism in Europe, especially since they desire to join the EU.

The greater threat to Europe is immigration from muslim countries, and you're right that the degenerate state of modern Europe does not bode well...I can envision missionaries from Africa, Asia, and South America going to the future Europe to convert the secular/pagan heathens.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Niccolò' date='May 8 2005, 05:26 PM'] I see Turkey becoming more of an extension of secular Europe rather than a new base for Islamic expansionism. Of course the invasion of Cyprus and the suppression of the Kurds shows that the Turks indeed have a streak of nationalism in them, but I doubt that would turn to expansionism in Europe, especially since they desire to join the EU.

The greater threat to Europe is immigration from muslim countries, and you're right that the degenerate state of modern Europe does not bode well...I can envision missionaries from Africa, Asia, and South America going to the future Europe to convert the secular/pagan heathens. [/quote]
Actually there is some concern thatthey may not Join the EU because of the re-emergent nationalism, it is serious. It is a wave of nationalism passing through the nation. Their high court just through out a law to allow forigen land ownership and their president threw out a bill to allow ending restrictions on forgien ownership of natonal broadcasters, saying it would harm national interest. Mein Kampf has hit the best seller list. and the Army General staff has just issued a statement vowing to defend the nation to its " last drop of Blood". Turkey best be watched.