The crusades were a just war as they were a direct response to to Muslim aggression. The Christians had every right to re-take christian lands conquered by the Moslems and while immoral actions were committed, they do not detract from the just cause of the war. The sackings of Jerusalem and Constantinople were in fact, condemned by the crusade’s leaders.
Although, these sackings were horrible and unfortunate events that should be frowned upon as atrocious. However, the crusaders had their reasons for sacking the two cities and
while these reasons certainly did not justify their actions, we have to realize that these sackings were not done mindlessly, out of bloodlust nor out of greed. Prior to the sacking of Jerusalem, the crusaders suffered immensely from both the heat of the sun and the effects of the desert winds, which drained moisture from their bodies.The Moslems had also poisoned the wells near the city and the men were desperate for hydration, resorting to licking dew of grass or digging in the ground to find moist earth. When they had finally taken the city, they went wild, killing several innocent people. The sacking of Constantinople was done because the Emperor failed to honor his side of the bargain. He had promised the crusaders payment for reinstating him (as his throne had been usurped), yet they received nothing. The crusaders waited for word from the emperor but to no avail. They had to live an entire winter with barely any food. Since the crusaders were not given their due, they felt justified in raiding his lands as a means of “paying themselves”.
Though crusade leaders such as Simon de Montfort and Godfrey de Boullion condemned such actions, the crusades were a large and unorganized mess and taking into consideration that the circumstances prior to those events were conducive to a sacking, those horrors as we know them today were very likely to happen.
- The inquisition was founded by Queen Isabella, who knew that the unity of Spain relied on a strong church. Moors and Jews, who didn’t believe in Christian doctrine, rose into powerful positions in both the Church and the government. This was a huge problem and the Inquisition was made for this reason, to differentiate who was a true Christian and who was not. Abuses were frequent early on but when Torquemada was appointed grand inquisitor to solve these problems procedures became more lenient, torture was reduced significantly, prison conditions were improved and money was even given to the families on those on trial. The inquisition was also considered a “more just court than most” and criminals would even pretend to be heretics just to be transferred into the hands of the inquisition. We should also take into consideration that during these times, torture was used by all governments as a means of extracting confessions. People who were found guilty in the inquisition were considered traitors to both the state and church and were charged with execution. Those who were found guilty were given a chance to repent. However, if one refused to repent or relapsed he would then be sentenced to death. Out of the 100,000+ that were put on trial, only 2000 were executed.
Again, you can’t push 21st century morals into medieval people* (ex: torture was a common practice during those times)*. You have to take into context the times and circumstances surrounding those events. To label both the crusades and the inquisition would be incorrect in my opinion.
As for the last one, I don’t know. I’m not American and I have yet to read more on that subject.