Are the Crusades defensible?

[graceandfaith]

I just finished reading a book entitled “Seven Lies about Catholic History” by Diane Moczar. It was a very informative, quick read. Basically her position was that , yes, the crusades are defensible. There were things that happened that are shameful for the church, but there are things which are shameful even in the most noble of wars. Her stance was that the Crusades were an answer to a century of Muslim aggression against the Byzantine empire and Christian Europe. What are your thoughts on this subject. I tend to agree with her. I personally believe in the ‘just war’ theory. Thank you all! Let’s please keep it civil.

 

[Warrenton]

I just finished reading a book entitled “Seven Lies about Catholic History” by Diane Moczar.

Hillaire Belloc also wrote a short, incisive account titled “The Crusades.” His premise is compelling, and ought to have been read by the US presidents.

 

[Kaninchen]

Hillaire Belloc also wrote a short, incisive account titled “The Crusades.” His premise is compelling, and ought to have been read by the US presidents.

What’s he say about the Albigensian Crusade? Or the Sack of Constaninople in the Fourth Crusade?

 

[danserr]

I just finished reading a book entitled “Seven Lies about Catholic History” by Diane Moczar. It was a very informative, quick read. Basically her position was that , yes, the crusades are defensible. There were things that happened that are shameful for the church, but there are things which are shameful even in the most noble of wars. Her stance was that the Crusades were an answer to a century of Muslim aggression against the Byzantine empire and Christian Europe. What are your thoughts on this subject. I tend to agree with her. I personally believe in the ‘just war’ theory. Thank you all! Let’s please keep it civil.

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0055.html

Thomas Madden’s (foremost crusade historian in America) short article here would support that view. To say the crusades were defensible is not to say that every crusader was morally perfect or that many were not motivated by less than holy motives. But it is simply a historical fact that the crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression, specifically their encroachment on the Byzantine empire and defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikurt in 1072.

The fact is that Islam saw the world as divided into 2 spheres, the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”, which, as you might guess, held that any non-Islamic country was to be conquered and violently brought into the “house of Islam.”

As in any war, atrocities happened on both sides, but it does not follow that the crusades as a whole were unjustified or indefensible.

 

[Warrenton]

What’s he say about the Albigensian Crusade? Or the Sack of Constaninople in the Fourth Crusade?

The book does not cover the first, and if I remember only treats with the sack in a cursory way. The focus is on the first and second crusade.

There is a very good book on the Albigensian crusade called The Promised Land of Error by Emmanuel Ladurie. I don’t know if it is still in print - it was published in France, and I imagine one could find an old copy in the UK.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Unfortunately, too often those who dabble in history tend to judge events by today’s standards instead of the standards prevalent at the time of the event.
This is a grave error in that it leads to revisionism-a cardinal historical sin in which the personal social and political bias of the contemporary reporter tries to sway the reader in his favor. e.g. Columbus was a mass murderer. President kennedy was one of our great presidents on a par with Washington and Lincoln.

 

[danserr]

The book does not cover the first, and if I remember only treats with the sack in a cursory way. The focus is on the first and second crusade.

There is a very good book on the Albigensian crusade called The Promised Land of Error by Emmanuel Ladurie. I don’t know if it is still in print - it was published in France, and I imagine one could find an old copy in the UK.

Ladurie’s book doesn’t really cover the Albigensian crusade itself, it mostly deals with peasant life as you learn about it from an inquisition register. It is a pretty interesting book, but the time period is about 100 years after the albigesian crusade. All the books on that crusade have drawbacks, but there are some ok ones out by Joseph Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, and another by Michael Costen The cathars and the albigensian crusade, which I read a while ago, but remember thinking was ok.

 

[graceandfaith]

Its just find it very interesting to hear all opinions on the matter. I was raised in a Methodist type environment; later my family moved over to a Pentecostal branch where the depth of my faith was formed. I am currently in RCIA and it is just amazing to finally have my ‘eyes opened’ so to speak. The depth of history and truth that’s found in the Catholic church is unmatched. I tell you a little about my background to emphasize that I was brought up being taught many un-truths about the Catholic church and faith. The “Black Legend” mentality I believe is responsible for this. It really is so invigorating to see the truth always come out in the open, no matter how deep the historical revisionism or lies seem to be.

I do know that there were many different types of Crusades. Not all of them were called or sanctioned by Rome or the church. Does anyone have a complete list or timeline of which Crusades took place? I know of the disastrous Children’s Crusade. I also find it refreshing to see several post about the importance to not judge past events through the lens of modern ideology. Very wise words!

 

[Warrenton]

Ladurie’s book doesn’t really cover the Albigensian crusade itself, it mostly deals with peasant life as you learn about it from an inquisition register.

It has been 10 years since I read it, so I stand corrected. It seemed even handed in its treatment of the matter, but perhaps I am forgetting other parts of it.

 

[Roman_Army]

Personally, I believe the original intent was justified, but that the conduct in the war was not in many cases. I would add that it is not required for us as Catholics to hold this position, if one honestly believes the whole thing was not justified, then one could still be a Catholic in good standing.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I just finished reading a book entitled “Seven Lies about Catholic History” by Diane Moczar. It was a very informative, quick read. Basically her position was that , yes, the crusades are defensible. There were things that happened that are shameful for the church, but there are things which are shameful even in the most noble of wars. Her stance was that the Crusades were an answer to a century of Muslim aggression against the Byzantine empire and Christian Europe. What are your thoughts on this subject. I tend to agree with her. I personally believe in the ‘just war’ theory. Thank you all! Let’s please keep it civil.

See also from Thomas Madden a review of several books on the Crusades.
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/crusaders-and-historians-42

Also from Jonathan Riley-Smith
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/rethinking-the-crusades-35

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

What’s he say about the Albigensian Crusade? Or the Sack of Constaninople in the Fourth Crusade?

You can read about the Sack of Constantinople in Thomas F. Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades, pp. 105-114.

Perhaps you were unaware that the Crusaders were diverted to Constantinople by the Emperor to reinstate him after his throne was usurped and he promised to pay them. They received no payment and almost no food for a whole winter while they waited for word from the Emperor. Even a visit to the court after the Emperor was able to gain power brought nothing. “Because the emperor would not pay what he owed, the knights felt justified in raiding his lands to ‘pay ourselves.’” (p. 112)

No one is going to defend all that went on there, but to act like it was a wanton blood thirsty, money hungry excursion is far from historical fact.

 

[Warrenton]

Because the emperor would not pay what he owed, the knights felt justified in raiding his lands to ‘pay ourselves.’" (p. 112)

The sack of Constantinople is a famous example of something that happens with some frequency during wars, especially drawn out ones.

A more recent, and much less extreme example, occurred when Israeli jets attacked an strafed the USS Liberty. Or even more recently, recall the Turkish maritime assitance to the Palestinian Authority, and the resulting Israeli attack. Both Turkey and Israel are friendly nations, as illustrated by their recent cooperation during the Van earthquake.

War creates a degree of desperation and decisions are made based on survival and opportunity. Wars that do not end produce tremendous frustration. Weigley’s The Age of Battle describes this tendency. The factors can cause allies to attack each other.

 

[Kaninchen]

Unfortunately, too often those who dabble in history tend to judge events by today’s standards instead of the standards prevalent at the time of the event.
This is a grave error in that it leads to revisionism-a cardinal historical sin in which the personal social and political bias of the contemporary reporter tries to sway the reader in his favor. e.g. Columbus was a mass murderer. President kennedy was one of our great presidents on a par with Washington and Lincoln.

Is that any worse than the biases of contemporary or contemporary-ish reports?

To a considerable extent, I agree with you that we should always bear in mind the ‘standards prevalent at the time’ but I think we should also treat them with a certain dose of cynicism, (perhaps) especially when dealing with ‘Wars of Religion’.

If one looks at the European ‘Wars of Religion’ of the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, people thought of them in religious terms, spoke of them in religious terms, reported them in religious terms but they had an awful lot to do with power, territory and profit as well - ideology and greed have had a long acquaintance.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The sack of Constantinople is a famous example of something that happens with some frequency during wars, especially drawn out ones.

A more recent, and much less extreme example, occurred when Israeli jets attacked an strafed the USS Liberty. Or even more recently, recall the Turkish maritime assitance to the Palestinian Authority, and the resulting Israeli attack. Both Turkey and Israel are friendly nations, as illustrated by their recent cooperation during the Van earthquake.

War creates a degree of desperation and decisions are made based on survival and opportunity. Wars that do not end produce tremendous frustration. Weigley’s The Age of Battle describes this tendency. The factors can cause allies to attack each other.

Good point.

 

[Warrenton]

Is that any worse than the biases of contemporary or contemporary-ish reports?

It is not worse, but engaging in revisionism prevents answering the question whether something was justified, or more precisely, why did the people who acted at the time believed justified, or if they did.

If one looks at the European ‘Wars of Religion’ of the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, people thought of them in religious terms, spoke of them in religious terms, reported them in religious terms but they had an awful lot to do with power, territory and profit as well - ideology and greed have had a long acquaintance.

Clearly. France, whose government was at least nominally Catholic, consistently supported the Protestant cause against the Holy Roman Empire, which sought to maintain its structural and religious integrity, although it was negotiable on religious freedom to higher degree than many contemporary states.

It is worthwhile to observe that modern governments act the same way. The United Kingdom believed itself justified in suppressing the Irish rebellions. The USA believed itself justified in supprerssing the Confederate rebellion. Russia believes itself justified in suppressing the Chechyn separatists. Bosnia believes itself justified in suppressing the Orthodox seperatists, and NATO agrees and assists it. Isreal believes itself justified in suppressing Palestinian attempts to secede from its political control. China believes itself justified in suppressing the Tibetans.

One might ask, as a matter of psychology, how many of the Isrealites motives were “pure” when Joshua led the people over the Jordan. Is it realistic to assume that the same people who made the Golden Calf and berated Moses were totally transformed in the span of one generation? How many were motivated by the desire for someone else’s land? Scripture remarks on this, when the Lord says “I have given you cities you have not built, you eat of vinyards that you did not plant.”

As a matter of realpolitik it comes down to Richard Burton’s line in Alexander the Great, when he was asked to whom he left his empire: “To the strongest,” was the reply.

It is easy to identify impure motive and error. It is hard to say when one group has the right to demand -and fight for- self governance and freedom. In the long history of humanity, it has never been definitively answered.

 

[Kaninchen]

It is not worse, but engaging in revisionism prevents answering the question whether something was justified, or more precisely, why did the people who acted at the time believed justified, or if they did.

My point being that one should not necessarily take the justifications of the time at face value either.

Clearly. France, whose government was at least nominally Catholic, consistently supported the Protestant cause against the Holy Roman Empire, which sought to maintain its structural and religious integrity, although it was negotiable on religious freedom to higher degree than many contemporary states.

Thing is, Habsburg-Valois (later-Bourbon) rivalry pre-dated the Reformation - the Habsburgs had encircled France - and ‘your neighbour’s neighbour is your friend’, realpolitik trumping ideology.

It is easy to identify impure motive and error.

Thus whitewashing is as futile as revisionism.

 

[Warrenton]

My point being that one should not necessarily take the justifications of the time at face value either.

This is true. One thing to bear in mind though, is that contemporaneous justifications are useful because, whether true or lies, they are historical. Revisionism of the worst kind (sometimes revisionsism can be helpful) just reinforces myth.

Thus whitewashing is as futile as revisionism.