The Crusades...A religious and justified or political and unjust?

[TheFrank]

Note, when I say "just" and "unjust" I don't mean "They were all murders!" or they were "Nothing but terrorists". 1000 years ago, the concept of what was just and right was nothing like it is today.

This topic is to debate (as scholars, so no hot headed arguments. Keep it civil or begone.) The Crusades, and to discover what they truly were in the mind of a person living 1000 years ago( and by this means, debate the theory of Christian holy war. Once again, not to be confused with what WE as modern men believe.) With this, I shall begin.

I will be using, as my primary source "God's War: A new History on the Crusades" written by Christopher Tyerman. I use this primarily because its extensive section on the theory of holy war.

To understand the theory of Christian holy war, one must being with "War, the Bible, and Classical Theory". In all my studies there is one quote that rings out for me, that is from the book "History of the Crusades" (Published: 1951-54) by Steven Runciman. He stated "The Holy war itself, was nothing more then a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy ghost." Once must remember, that intolerance again the (preceived) enemies of God. Have had a long history in Judeo-Christian history. In all religions for that matter. What may appear today for Christian, and many non-Christians a inconceivable paradox between Holy War and the preachings of peace within the gospel. One must remember, the bible is full of such wars.

One must also remember, the religion is skewed by the institutions of worship. What I mean to say, is the Church (In all religions, but I don't really know what the Islamic saying would be for "All of us") for some reason has a primal grasp on the fealty of her adherents. The Gospel for instance, isn't even the entirety of it. A priest, teaches a congregation on how he interperates it and so forth.

The bible is full of such wars. I believe the meaning of peace to be "Personal peace, being a peaceful human being" not public peace "I will never go to war...ever...ever...for no reason." But, that is enough on what I believe.

In the Old Testament God commanded Moses to to enlist the Levites to slaughter the followers of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:26-8) and ordered Saul to "to annihilate the Amalekites men, women, and child suckling" The bible is full of suck wars.

The Theory of Holy war, from St. Augustine

Augustine combined the the Greco-Roman ideas of just cause and ended up with the concept of Christian 'Right intent'. To him, in order for war to be just is. It must have a Just cause ( IT must be defensive, or to recover lost possessions), a legitimate authority must sanction it, and those carrying it out must be of a just heart. Thus war, by its nature sinful. Could promote rightousness. War, in its violence, could be a legitimately peaceful act.
One must remember, the Theory of 'Just war' (Or Bellum justum) is not yet "Holy war" (or Bellum Sacrum).

The Papacy and Holy War

In the early 11th century, the Papacy began to openly make wars holy. William carried a Papal banner at Hastings for example, and before that Charlemagne had Papal support for his campaigns against the Saxons. When the Pope fought again the Norman barons in southern Italy, his army the "Malita Sancti Petri" (The Militia of St. Peter) was given indulgences.

The Bishop, Anselm II of Lucca, wrote "Collectio Canonum" (Collection of Canon law C. 1083) Further detailing the theories on both just and holy war. He of course, drew on Gospel to support his claims. "Cursed is he who keeps back his sword from bloodshed" (Jeremiah 48:10) for example. He described 2 occupations for arms-bearers on secular and sinful the other holy, protecting the church, windows, and the poor (Holy war and Chivalry go hand in hand it appears). After the death of Pope Gregory the Bishop Bonizo of Sutri in his "Liber de Vita Christiana" identified those who for "There salvation and the common good" fought schismatics, heretics and excommunicates as "ordo pugnatorum" who is who Urban II hoped would answer his passionate plea in 1095.

This is all for today, discuss. In a few more days, I will post on the summoning of the first crusade and place that up for discussion. Remember, this is simply for theological and historical discussion and in no way shows the views of the author.

Honorably,
TheFrank

[Dreadking]

Have you read anything by Jonathon Riley-Smith?

Please do. He sheds light on the fact that the charters of the knights reveal they believed they were fighting as a way of penitence. It was the idea of positive violence and just/holy war which legitimised their actions.

[TheFrank]

I will take a look at in Dreadking. Right now I am just finishing up "The Templars" by Piers Paul Read.

[Muagan_ra]

Whenever I instinctly want to condemn the crusaders, I think of the "Arab Conquest", and the Moorish invasion of Spain - not to mention, what would have happened had they not been stopped in southern France.

Even if the Crusades where just brutality - it could be seen as revenge, albeit served cold.

They may have been a sweaty bunch of zealots, but so where the Muslims. I can't really take any 'side'.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The crusades didn't target the Moors that invaded Spain. Besides, I know it is not convenient for your reality, Muagan, but many of the Iberian peoples came to the Moors and submitted to them without being threatened with violence. Many of them converted to Islam because they saw the powerful Moors and thought, "If they're this powerful and wealthy and they believe this, it must be the truth"

[jankren]

The crusades didn't target the Moors that invaded Spain. Besides, I know it is not convenient for your reality, Muagan, but many of the Iberian peoples came to the Moors and submitted to them without being threatened with violence. Many of them converted to Islam because they saw the powerful Moors and thought, "If they're this powerful and wealthy and they believe this, it must be the truth"

It is still not a justification for the Arab colonization of Iberia though.

[Dreadking]

The crusades didn't target the Moors that invaded Spain. Besides, I know it is not convenient for your reality, Muagan, but many of the Iberian peoples came to the Moors and submitted to them without being threatened with violence. Many of them converted to Islam because they saw the powerful Moors and thought, "If they're this powerful and wealthy and they believe this, it must be the truth"

Be serious. Nations conquered each other like that until after WWII. You don't need to justify an invasion. If you read Marcus Bull he says that the Crusades against Lithuanians, Moors were also just other theatres in the wars of the crusades. In my opinion, the crusades, were a reaction to muslim conquest, and aggressive Islam, a reaction to the crusades.

[Muagan_ra]

The crusades didn't target the Moors that invaded Spain. Besides, I know it is not convenient for your reality, Muagan, but many of the Iberian peoples came to the Moors and submitted to them without being threatened with violence. Many of them converted to Islam because they saw the powerful Moors and thought, "If they're this powerful and wealthy and they believe this, it must be the truth"

Maybe that's a delusion 'convienient for your reality' : I don't think they where a slobbering bunch of heathens, but I don't for a second believe that Spanish people just bowed over and accepted it, because they fought the Moors bitterly and eventually turned the tables. What I'm saying is that the Crusaders wheren't at the bottom from any moral highground - religious conquest was not a new phenonemon, and the Muslims where the very best exponents of this.

[Sher Khan]

Maybe that's a delusion 'convienient for your reality' : I don't think they where a slobbering bunch of heathens, but I don't for a second believe that Spanish people just bowed over and accepted it, because they fought the Moors bitterly and eventually turned the tables. What I'm saying is that the Crusaders wheren't at the bottom from any moral highground - religious conquest was not a new phenonemon, and the Muslims where the very best exponents of this.

The conquest of Iberia was hardly a struggle in comparison to the first crusades. Only one or two battles were truly a struggle in the march north, and cities one after the other capitulated to spite their old Visigoth masters.

For the most part, the people of Spain did accept it. And with open arms at times. The Jewish population made it all the more easy as well.

[MasterAdnin]

Even if the crusades were just or could be justified, that is not what historians speak of today. The question rather should be, were the massive murders of the Muslims and Eastern Christians justified. Also remember, Islam never invaded anything, it was the Arabs who apparently to many western scholars, are synonymous with Muslims.

Also in my opinion, the aggressors in any war are never justified. The Arabs were certainly not justified in attacking the middle east, nor were the western knights justified in slaughtering those in the middle east. The only reason why I hold the Arab armies in better esteem than the western Knights is because of their compassion for life despite their beliefs.

To elaborate on why the Christians were not justified is due to the fact that had they actually lived there previous to the invasion, they would have had ample reason to retaliate. This, however, was not the case and therefore is not justified. Not only this, had the Muslims been actively opressing those in the middle east, the crusading armies would have been justified, but again, this was not the case.

The true purpose, which many historians have agreed upon, is that the true reason for the Crusades was that so the Pope, Pope Urban II if I am not mistaken, could stop Islam from spreading into Europe. Emporer Alexios only asked for an elite band of knights, not a massive army. Had the Crusades not been launched, Islam most likely, would have spread in Europe, though it would have taken along time and a unified Islamic state to do so.

I hope that my post is clear so that you may respond to it if you wish to do so. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Sher Khan]

We're starting to see the change from the 'Crusades were all unholy butchers out for gold and glory' line to the 'Crusading was a reaction to past Muslim conquest' line.

Both may have some margin of truth, however small, but so too are they an exaggerated oversimplification.



But this isn't the VV.

As far as the topic is concerned.... No war has ever been 'unjust,' except for those not involved, or those on the other side. It was just to the Crusaders and their sympathizers, but not to most others.


The answer to the spiritual question? The crusaders were penitent and itinerant pilgrims looking for their own personal salvation through defense of their co-religionists and seeking their most holiest of cities and temples for prayer. The powers that be held loftier, more secular goals at times. Some more secular than others. Some more (much more) self-serving than others.

But the one thing to understand about warfare in pre-Enlightenment Christian Europe (and by extension Muslim Asia and Africa)? Every war, every conflict, whether justified, political, or unjust, was always viewed in terms of righteousness. It was always viewed through the eyes of religious piety and right faith. Especially, almost always in fact, when two sides are of a different religious persuasion.

[hellheaven1987]

But the one thing to understand about warfare in pre-Enlightenment Christian Europe (and by extension Muslim Asia and Africa)? Every war, every conflict, whether justified, political, or unjust, was always viewed in terms of righteousness. It was always viewed through the eyes of religious piety and right faith. Especially, almost always in fact, when two sides are of a different religious persuasion.

That reminds me Hundred Years War. Both English and French viewed the God was at their sides.

[TheFrank]

Ok, the theory that the crusades were all Political is based on entirely disproven facts. Looks carefully at the reactions of the families of western Europe to the summoning of a crusade. Men, women, and some historians believe children. Left everything they had, sold property to afford arms and armor and the sinews of war. Levied there lands and property for money to fund there expedition. The WALKED for the most part thousands of miles. Through some downright hostile territory. Suffered disease and privation. Were always - that far from complete annihilation. Constantly harried by an armed and powerful foe. At the end of it all, they still had to face the specter of storming a walled city.

On another not, yes there were killings. For instance when the crusaders saked Jerusalem in 1099. One must remember that that was no different then the first time a Muslim army took Jerusalem 1000 years before that.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Religious, political and unjustified.

[TheFrank]

Did anyone even bother to read my first post (I know, it's long) but this is NOT about what WE believe. It is about what THEY believed. Take that into mind when you speak. Thank you all.

[Ummon]

Political and just?

[Dayman]

Politics, manipulated to appear as religious, and completely unjustified. Last time I checked, Jesus never advocated violence. Biblical scholars later warped that philosopher's teachings.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Politics, manipulated to appear as religious, and completely unjustified.

We've been over this a thousand times over on VV. The idea that the Crusades were "politics manipulated to appear as religious" is a gross oversimplifcation, at best. Of all the various motivations for the Crusading movement the one that was overwhelmingly and quite evidently the dominant one was religion. Anyone who tries to pretend overwise is indulging in modern revisionism.

And since we're talking about the Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries, we're therefore talking about Eleventh to Thirteenth Century religion, not modern religion. So things that are undoubtedly "unjustified" from our perspective were entirely justified then. Since they weren't modern people they, not surprisingly, didn't see the world the way we do.

So the answer is "primarily religious" and "justified according to the world view of the time (our moral perspective being, therefore, totally irrelevant).

[Dayman]

Killing is never justified, except in last resort. Christ never taught anyone to kill in his name. Any rationalization was produced by theologians at the time. Just because in their mindset, the violence was just, does not make it so.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Killing is never justified, except in last resort. Christ never taught anyone to kill in his name.

"Christ" taught a group of ragged peasants that political violence was about to be made redundant by the impending end of the world and God's intervention into history. By the time the Roman Empire converted in the late Fourth Century it was becoming clear that this impending end of the world wasn't coming any time soon and, in the meantime, there was still the need for Christian states to go to war if they wanted to survive.

That was how people in the Eleventh Century saw things. You can disagree if you want, but your perspective on things would simply make no sense to them at all.

Any rationalization was produced by theologians at the time. Just because in their mindset, the violence was just, does not make it so.

They thought it did. They didn't share your perspective on things. So what, exactly, is the point of judging Eleventh Century people by Twenty-First Century standards they simply didn't share? You might as well judge them for not driving cars or using computers - it makes about as much sense.