Were the crusades justifiable?

[Drustan]

Considering that our boy Alex had only narrowly gotten away alive from trying to keep an opportunistic Western bigwig from snatching away choice bits of Hellas in the wake of Manzikert not too many years earlier, I daresay it is quite understandable if he didn't trust the lot any further than he could throw them. In full war gear.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Manco]

What the hell are you talking about?

This guy I reckon

[Watchman]

That'd be the man, yes. Alexios' worries probably weren't exactly lessened by his son Bohemond being one of the more prominent Crusader leaders, come to think of it...

" what."

Watchman,

What didn't you understand?

Mostly, what your garbled pile of disjointed nonsense was even supposed to be trying to say.

IIRC the crusades where (partly) a reaction to muslim expansion into then christian lands...

It certainly wasn't about going to Medina (or wherever it originated) and burn it down for good; It was move of a "Get of My Lawn!" move.

O RLY? Funny that, seeing as how *that* had stopped centuries earlier and I can assure you that Western Christendom roundly didn't give a damn about what happened to the Byzantines - indeed they'd lately been carving bits off the EMpire themselves. Nevermind now that the Holy Land had been in Muslim hands for the past round four-five centuries without that seeming to have bothered the "Westerners" overmuch.

Serious historians point at entirely different forces at play, mostly involving developements *within* Catholic Europe and in particular the ever-problematic relationship of the pugnacious warrior class to a decent number of divine commandements (and Church interests).

[Manuel I Komnenos]

In fact, I'd go as far as to claim that the Crusades (at least the first two) were strongly related with the desire of the Normans to either keep Byzantium busy and weaken it or take land from it. Especially just before the 2nd Crusade, the Normans pressed the Pope to have a crusade declared against the Muslims who had taken Edessa and they had promised that they would provide the needed ships. At the end they didn't and it was basically proved that all they wanted was to keep Manuel I Komnenos and the German Emperor Conrad distracted and avoid facing both og them in two fronts, Southern and Central Italy respectively.

[justicar5]

Keeping europe from tearing itself apart (again) may have heavinly influenced the popes decision, true.

[Playfishpaste]

Suppose there's a bunch of J's who are members of a religion R, and a bunch of J's who are a member of a religion R'.

We'll call the first set of J's, R(j), we'll call the second set R'(j).

If one is a member of R, as opposed to R', it's very likely that one has sufficient reason to be a member of R (perhaps one has only had religious experiences that are christian in nature, rather than muslim. It would make sense, then, to join the christian religion).

Now if one has sufficient reason to be a member of R, then presumably if some tenet of R dictates that one should go on a crusade, say "all members of R ought to trust the pope since the pope is infallible", then one is very justified in going on a crusade (depending on how sufficient her reasons for being in R are).

So all the members of the set R(j) are justified in going on a crusade with the members of the set R'(j) and all the members of the set R'(j) are justified in going on a crusade (or rather, counterattack) against all the members of R(j), even though their reasons contradict each other (they have a different set of justified sufficient reasons).

So yes, it seems very probable the crusades were morally justified (for both the muslims and christians).

However, as to the whole "you should go on a crusade to keep the muslims from invading you" bit, I don't think that's a very compelling argument for justification. You would have to wait until they actually started to be a threat to your border areas by actively beginning to invade. Just War theory does not imply that, say, America should preemptively strike Iraq if Iraq formed some colonies in South America.

[Drustan]

Suppose there's a bunch of J's who are members of a religion R, and a bunch of J's who are a member of a religion R'.

We'll call the first set of J's, R(j), we'll call the second set R'(j).

If one is a member of R, as opposed to R', it's very likely that one has sufficient reason to be a member of R (perhaps one has only had religious experiences that are christian in nature, rather than muslim. It would make sense, then, to join the christian religion).

Now if one has sufficient reason to be a member of R, then presumably if some tenet of R dictates that one should go on a crusade, say "all members of R ought to trust the pope since the pope is infallible", then one is very justified in going on a crusade (depending on how sufficient her reasons for being in R are).

So all the members of the set R(j) are justified in going on a crusade with the members of the set R'(j) and all the members of the set R'(j) are justified in going on a crusade (or rather, counterattack) against all the members of R(j), even though their reasons contradict each other (they have a different set of justified sufficient reasons).

So yes, it seems very probable the crusades were morally justified (for both the muslims and christians).

However, as to the whole "you should go on a crusade to keep the muslims from invading you" bit, I don't think that's a very compelling argument for justification. You would have to wait until they actually started to be a threat to your border areas by actively beginning to invade. Just War theory does not imply that, say, America should preemptively strike Iraq if Iraq formed some colonies in South America.

I'm sure there's a way you could have worded that to make it easier to understand

[.L.]

The idea of the first crusade was justified, however the actions surrounding it were cruel and brutal even for the era.

[Primo]

The idea of the first crusade was justified, however the actions surrounding it were cruel and brutal even for the era.

I donīt think any crusade was justified. They were about power not about religion anyway. But I think the actions arenīt more or less cruel than any other kind of warfare.

[.L.]

It was kinda justified as the purpose was to help out an ally(Byzzies) but they called upon the wrong men to do it, also scholars FROM THAT AGE show reports of being disgusted with the mindless slaughter that was the taking of Jerusalem.

[Primo]

It was kinda justified as the purpose was to help out an ally(Byzzies) but they called upon the wrong men to do it, also scholars FROM THAT AGE show reports of being disgusted with the mindless slaughter that was the taking of Jerusalem.

Yes, and they reported the other dozens of mindless slaughters the same way.

And I still think: A crusade is ok, as long as it comes with words rather than swords.

[Manco]

The idea of the first crusade was justified, however the actions surrounding it were cruel and brutal even for the era.

No they weren't really. Except for the entire cannibalism part (which horrified the Latins as well, including other Crusaders) which was born out of desperation, most actions during the Crusades perfectly fitted the accepted manner of warfare.
Cities that didn't accept terms were fair game, it was the exact same in Europe.

I donīt think any crusade was justified. They were about power not about religion anyway. But I think the actions arenīt more or less cruel than any other kind of warfare.

They absolutely were about religion. You have a whole bunch of the richest and most powerful men of Europe nearly going bankrupt just to get in the Holy Land.
That some, or many for that matter, hoped for a bit of material gain doesn't change that religion played an extremely major part.

[Primo]

They absolutely were about religion. You have a whole bunch of the richest and most powerful men of Europe nearly going bankrupt just to get in the Holy Land.
That some, or many for that matter, hoped for a bit of material gain doesn't change that religion played an extremely major part.

No. Religion was a symbol for the crusades. It made many people join. But the reason was power. The pope and other men wanted power in the holy land, and destroy this rivalling religion (islam). The crusades in itself are against what is written in the bible. There is no justification nor a reason for them in it.

[Blaze86420]

The idea of the first crusade was justified, however the actions surrounding it were cruel and brutal even for the era.

I second this notion, and as we all know my opinion is the only one that matters.

[Carpathian Wolf]

No worse than the Muslims who "started it."

[Blaze86420]

Fair game bro, none of us ended up winning in the end and the underdogs got the prize.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Those crafty Jeeeewwwwwwzzzzz

[IronBrig4]

In terms of how much it mattered to contemporaries, though, the Crusades were a minor blip on the radar screen. Possessing Jerusalem was certainly a mark of pride, but there were many other things to be worried about. The Spanish were busy fighting the Moors, the Germans were subduing the Baltic pagans, the English Normans were solidifying their control over the Saxons (at least during the First Crusade), and it seemed like everybody was fighting everybody else. As for the Muslims, the Egyptians were always dealing with internal divisions. They were also preoccupied with the steppeland nomads that were making repeated incursions into their territory.

[Manco]

Yeah, people often ignore that bit wasn't a (pure) West vs East thing. Crusader states and local rulers often allied and exploited each other when it was expedient.

[Nietzsche]

It seems that this thread has dissolved into prejudicial anti-Christian rants disguised as historical analysis. Several excellent books have been written (and quite recently) on the subject that detail the historical nature of the conflict as well as the political and faith-based idealism that motivated the European Princes to act.


To say it was blind religious fervor is, in my mind, completely ridiculous. The logistics involved required considerable planning and political capital to instantiate. To say the Princes were motivated by greed is also flawed as so many returned penniless or never returned at all.



Remember at the time, the Mediterranean was an Islamic lake and choked off “world” trade. Since the fall of the Roman Empire the influence and revenue generated by trade had relegated many European Kingdoms to a provincial backwater. Obviously, there was much to be gained economically, by breaking the Islamic hegemony of the Mediterranean.


The result of breaking Islam’s hold on the Med would improve trade, quality of life, culture, etc, for large swaths of Western Europe. In a historical context, these improvements were not realized until much later, but could be first attributed to the Crusaders.


Finally, despite the ignorance of some commentators here, there was a profound drive to re-open the Holy Land. Had the Islamic Princes provided better security for pilgrims (of which they made considerable sums of money in donations) the Crusaders would have never approached the East.



In general, there was a great deal of circumstance surrounding the economic and social history of the Crusades. To try and distill it, as some here are doing, to a Christian vs Muslim fight is being disingenuous at best, and ignorant at worst.