Crusaders...were any of them considered Martyrs?

[Wcravens]

Perhaps I don’t have a very good understanding of the crusades. But my question is “were the crusaders martyrs in any way.” I ask this because many of them died for their faith in God, and to reclaim their land from the Muslims during their time. I understand that killing and war are never necessary. Maybe I’m viewing this topic the wrong way. Just a simple yes or no answer would be fine!
God Bless!

 

[CRM_Brother]

The primary reason for a Martyr’s death must be In Odium Fidei, ‘in hatred of the faith’. Armed conflict of one force against another precludes In Odium Fidei amongst the combatants. The only way a martyrdom could be recognized is if the one who was killed was a non-combatant who was not affiliated with either army.

The only martyrs of the Crusades who could possibly be considered as such were those who were killed by the original Muslim invasion of the Byzantine empire before the official start of the Crusades and who were in no way part of an armed or political resistance to the army. Amongst these could possibly be the monks of the Holy Seplechur who were massacred by the invading armies.

Afterward, the holy sites were garrisoned with Knights Templar, whose militaristic nature automatically qualifies them as combatants.

 

[Wcravens]

Thank you! I should’ve put more research into this topic before posting it, but I didn’t know where to start. I didn’t know that soldiers and combatants aren’t considered martyrs even if they want to protect their faith. I now understand the Monks who were massacred May be martyrs because they were innocent, but didn’t not give up their faith in God despite being killed for it.

 

[Wcravens]

It’s really sad and shocking to me that so many of the early members of the Church were violently persecuted and invaded like that. It’s also sad how people who denied Christ acted in a way similar to Egypt in the Old Testament, even after Christ’s victory over sin.

 

[dandytree7771]

killing and war can be necessary. killing on an individual level can be justified (and even an obligation under certain circumstances)in cases of self-defence. as for war the catechism has conditions listed for “just wars”(wars in which fighting them is justified).

" The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."

this is taken from the Vatican archive(at least I think) I don’t think any of this was changed with the latest modification of the catechism by Pope francis but I may be wrong.

as for just wars:

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine."

 

[BartholomewB]

Amongst these could possibly be the monks of the Holy Seplechur who were massacred by the invading armies.

In the 1180s, when the Crusader state had been in existence for almost a century, St. Berthold is said to have founded a community of hermits living in huts on Mount Carmel. This community may possibly have originated the Carmelite order, though this is disputed. The community was attacked from time to time, a number of hermits were killed in the attacks, and in the end the community either died out or moved somewhere else before the final collapse of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1291. It would seem to make sense that any of the hermits who were killed deserve to be considered as martyrs.

 

[CRM_Brother]

It would seem to make sense that any of the hermits who were killed deserve to be considered as martyrs.

They are. They were non-combatants, even though they lived within the bounds of the Crusader kingdoms. I was specifically speaking of the armies, city defenders, and political rulers of the time which did not qualify as In Odium Fidei. I apologize my post seemed to denote something else.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Afterward, the holy sites were garrisoned with Knights Templar, whose militaristic nature automatically qualifies them as combatants.

How about the Knights Templar who were burned at the stake in France by King Philip IV? It was not a combat situation and their trial seems to have been a sham designed to take over their wealth by the King.