The Crusades: Just and Reasonable

[Semper_Fi_1]

Right.

What does this have to do with explaining the crusades as justified? There wasn’t a Byzantine crusade against the west at this time.

Oh, and one more thing. Why is it that Latin Archbishops and lay faithful were slaughtered in Constantinople before the sack of Byzantium by the Westerners?

Why is this little fact always left out of the secular history books?

 

[Vigis]

Yes Saint Augustine did come up with a justified war, but he condemed holy wars. Those kind of wars are to be left to God. I am quite glad that the Crusades happened. They have done much for us. The Moslems today still fear for another Crusade. BTW the Jews you were talking about that were murdered in Europe were protected as best as they could have been by Catholic priests. Some priests even died among them trying to save their lives. God speed.

 

[pro_universal]

Oh, and one more thing. Why is it that Latin Archbishops and lay faithful were slaughtered in Constantinople before the sack of Byzantium by the Westerners?

Why is this little fact always left out of the secular history books?

It’s not, but you believe that because you haven’t read the history books.

Now you’re making my point more clear: the crusades constituted a war between Christians as much as they did a war between Muslims and Christians.

Hence, posting on and on about how proud we should be is silly, because this is a time of war between Christians too.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

And to tie this in with the thread, the Fourth Crusade was part of a pattern of Crusades that helped to finally destroy the Byzantine Empire.

The crusades were not designed to destroy the Orthodox Church, but to destroy the threat of Muslims in Europe.

pro_universal:

Is this something to be proud of?

I have condemned the Fourth “Crusade”, what more do you want from me?

 

[pro_universal]

Yes Saint Augustine did come up with a justified war, but he condemed holy wars. Those kind of wars are to be left to God. I am quite glad that the Crusades happened. They have done much for us. The Moslems today still fear for another Crusade.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Crusades ended in a crushing defeat for European Christians.

BTW the Jews you were talking about that were murdered in Europe were protected as best as they could have been by Catholic priests. Some priests even died among them trying to save their lives. God speed.

Oh yes, they were so well protected that the Pope excommunicated everyone who participated in the killing of Jews (oh wait, he didn’t…)

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

It’s not, but you believe that because you haven’t read the history books.

Now you’re making my point more clear: the crusades constituted a war between Christians as much as they did a war between Muslims and Christians.

Hence, posting on and on about how proud we should be is silly, because this is a time of war between Christians too.

I give up. I’m not proud of the Fourth “Crusade” because it WAS NOT A JUST WAR. I REPEAT THE FOURTH CRUSADE WAS NOT A JUST WAR!

 

[pro_universal]

The crusades were not designed to destroy the Orthodox Church, but to destroy the threat of Muslims in Europe.

Read your history books, that’s all I can say on this point. I already linked you to one source.

Ending the schism by force was definitely on the agenda, as was ridding Europe of Jews and Heretics.

I have condemned the Fourth “Crusade”, what more do you want from me?

To recognize that it was part of a pattern with the other crusades. I linked you to some sources you can read about that.

You can also read, highly recommend it btw, The Alexiad of Anna Comnena. That’s an earlier account of how treacherous and violent the European Christians were with respect to the Byzantines.

None of the Crusades, even the first one, were good for Byzantium.

 

[pro_universal]

I give up. I’m not proud of the Fourth “Crusade” because it WAS NOT A JUST WAR. I REPEAT THE FOURTH CRUSADE WAS NOT A JUST WAR!

Read before you hit the caps button.

When I said “the crusades”, I meant all of them. The fourth crusade was not an abberation.

 

[Montalban]

Then how come the first people killed by the Crusader armies were European Jews? They started killing Jews before they ever left Europe, so I can’t possibly imagine how this is “triggered by Islam.”

They were seen as fifth columists. IF you knew history, you’d know that the Jews opened the gates of Jersualem to the Moslems in the frist place (in the 600s)

It is false to claim that Christianity spread peacefully. Theodosius and later emperors spent hundreds of years killing people who did not toe the orthodox line.

I did not say that it has ALWAYS spread peacefully. I said that it intially did, and Theodosius was some 300 years after Christ, so Christianity for that intervening period did spread peacefully.

And Charlemagne slauthered every non-Christian group he got his hands on.

Which was another 500 years later than Theodosius

The spread of Christianity was not peaceful. It is simply absurd to claim that it was.

It’s absurd to claim that I said that it always spread peacefully. Violence is not inherent to Christianity.

Maybe so, but it certainly wasn’t righteous violence that it begot, and Europe was already a violent, nasty place before the Muslims ever reached it.

The level of violence brought by Islam was new; religious violence at a new level, where people were compelled by a belief that their god willed it.

 

[Montalban]

Huh? This post is bizarre.

There hadn’t been a western Roman rival to Byzantium since the fifth century. After the fall of the west, Byzantium grew into one of the most powerful states in the medieval world. The Empire at Constantinople was unrivaled in sophistication and strength until the Muslim conquests defeated it.

It is true that it was unrivalled, but there were would-be challenges, such as the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne, and the revival Holy Roman Empire under Otto.

The “Roman setup” had absolutely zero to do with the fall of Constantinople in 1215 and then again in 1453. Byzantium had a completely different government by then, and the west was about as “Roman” as China.

The “civil war” (not really, just bad politics) you mentioned was due to infighting between wealthy families and the Church; that was a problem made worse by the Latins, not better.

I agree in part with this. There had often been infights in the Empire, as in many other empires before and after. The Latins used this to their advantage.

 

[Montalban]

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Crusades ended in a crushing defeat for European Christians.

Only in the Holy Lands. The ‘Crusades’ could be said to have culminated in the reconquest of Spain and Portugal.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

When I said “the crusades”, I meant all of them. The fourth crusade was not an abberation.

In your opinion. You signed up defending the Moslems (when you were “Catholic”), and now that you are one (I assume), I wouldn’t expect anything less.

 

[Montalban]

When I said “the crusades”, I meant all of them. The fourth crusade was not an abberation.

It was an abberation to Christianity.

Unlike Islam which is war-like, and thus against the nature of a loving God.

 

[pro_universal]

They were seen as fifth columists. IF you knew history, you’d know that the Jews opened the gates of Jersualem to the Moslems in the frist place (in the 600s)

Sure, but you should ask yourself why the Jews were so eager to help Muslims. The answer is that they were eager because Christians were already persecuting them.

I did not say that it has ALWAYS spread peacefully. I said that it intially did, and Theodosius was some 300 years after Christ, so Christianity for that intervening period did spread peacefully.

Before Constantine and Theodosius, Christianity did not really spread. It was a small, secret religion.

When it did spread, it did so in leaps and bounds only at the point of a sword.

Could you name a period between Theodosius and Charles V when Christianity was not spread by the sword?

The level of violence brought by Islam was new; religious violence at a new level, where people were compelled by a belief that their god willed it.

Isn’t the crusades an example of war compelled by God?

There was nothing new about Islam except that the society it came from was generally less violent than Europe. Europe during this time was one of the most brutal places on the planet.

 

[pro_universal]

Only in the Holy Lands. The ‘Crusades’ could be said to have culminated in the reconquest of Spain and Portugal.

True, but that’s even less to be proud of there.

The reconquest of Spain and Portugal led to the expulsion and mass murder of Jews and even Christians who spoke Arabic.

 

[pro_universal]

In your opinion. You signed up defending the Moslems (when you were “Catholic”), and now that you are one (I assume), I wouldn’t expect anything less.

I am not Muslim, and I’m defending the truth here.

The crusades were nothing to be proud of.

 

[pro_universal]

It was an abberation to Christianity.

Unlike Islam which is war-like, and thus against the nature of a loving God.

Montalban, I have a question:

Can you give me one example of a period and place where Christians were in power, yet did not spread their religion by the sword?

Can you name one Christian empire that tolerated religious minorities to the same extent that Muslim empires tolerated Christians and Jews?

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

They were seen as fifth columists. IF you knew history, you’d know that the Jews opened the gates of Jersualem to the Moslems in the frist place (in the 600s)

Sure, but you should ask yourself why the Jews were so eager to help Muslims. The answer is that they were eager because Christians were already persecuting them.

I don’t need to ask myself why. I already know. There was at the time a massive war between the Persians and the Romans (I’m talking about during the reign of Heraclius). In order to finance this war the Roman empire taxed its citizens to pay for it. Having just beaten the Persians the Arabs burst onto the scence and were seen rightly or wrongly as liberators. And the Jews opened the gates for them.
"Montalban:

I did not say that it has ALWAYS spread peacefully. I said that it intially did, and Theodosius was some 300 years after Christ, so Christianity for that intervening period did spread peacefully.

Before Constantine and Theodosius, Christianity did not really spread. It was a small, secret religion.

Even if that were true and you’re welcome to show this, it’s besides the point because in terms of geography Christianity had spread PEACEFULLY (which was my point) from one end of the Empire to the other.

When it did spread, it did so in leaps and bounds only at the point of a sword.

Perhaps you should read “Pagans and Christians” by Fox.

Could you name a period between Theodosius and Charles V when Christianity was not spread by the sword?

Sure, into Bulgaria and other Slavic lands; Sts. Cyril and Methodius did this. It spread into the Russian lands by peace.

Into Ireland by Patrick, and from Ireland into Scotland by Columba. It spread into Kent by Augustine who was in fact invited by the Kentish king. Even when the Celtic branch of Christinanity came into ‘conflict’ with the Roman branch (as spread from Kent) it was settled peacefully at the Synod of Whitby in the 600s.

St. Boniface’s only ‘violent’ act in Germany (that I’m aware of), was to cut down a pagan sacred tree, which in an essay on this I noted showed that the pagan gods bark was worse than their bite.

How many more examples do you need?

Montalban:

The level of violence brought by Islam was new; religious violence at a new level, where people were compelled by a belief that their god willed it.

Isn’t the crusades an example of war compelled by God?

No, it’s an example of war by people who think it’s compelled by God. The difference is that we can look to the teachings of Jesus to use as a measure as to what God wants, and we can, likewise look to Muhammed to see the Islamic idea of what their god wants. In one we have a man of peace. In the other we have a lecherous man who was morally bankrupt - having had sex with a nine year old child. Thus if Christians go against the ‘norm’ of Christ, we can test this. And if Moslems go with the ‘norm’ of Muhammed we can test this.

There was nothing new about Islam except that the society it came from was generally less violent than Europe. Europe during this time was one of the most brutal places on the planet

Actually there was because Islam was one of the first to routinise violence as part of its religion.

 

[Montalban]

I am not Muslim, and I’m defending the truth here.

Yet you seem to believe that Islamic violence is the same as that done by Christians.

And there is a difference.

Imagine if you will for a moment that I pick up a gun and shoot my neighbour dead.

Imagine then if I pick up a gun and in an effort to protect himself my neighbour kills me.

In both cases a person has been killed. The reasons why are not the same, and vastly important as one is murder, the other is self-defence.

Islam calls for people to be violent. Christianity does not.

If a Moslem and a Christian are violent then in one case we can link their faith, but in the other we can not.

You seek to treat them both the same. They are not. Your ‘truth’ is one of a relativistic argument, and lack of facts don’t seem to pose a problem for you.

The crusades were nothing to be proud of.

And yet, mantra-like you repeat a point he’s already conceded.

 

[pro_universal]

Having just beaten the Persians the Arabs burst onto the scence and were seen rightly or wrongly as liberators. And the Jews opened the gates for them.

There’s also the fact that Jews were barred by Christians from being in Jerusalem. I guess that’s not religious persecution.

Even if that were true and you’re welcome to show this, it’s besides the point because in terms of geography Christianity had spread PEACEFULLY (which was my point) from one end of the Empire to the other.

No it had not. Christianity was not even a majority religion in the Empire until theodosius mandated orthodox Christianity as the only legal religion and started burning out everyone who didn’t follow orders.

Justinian really did non-Christian greek religion to death, completing the process.

I’m sorry, but your claim that it spread peacefully is false. It was never a major religion until the Roman state declared from the top down that Romans had to be Christian.

Sure, into Bulgaria and other Slavic lands; Sts. Cyril and Methodius did this. It spread into the Russian lands by peace.

You just gave examples of top down conversion. These were places where the leadership converted (mainly for political reasons, like Clovis) and then it was the law that the people had to convert too. There was no option to keep your old religion in these instances, so this is more spreading by force.

Into Ireland by Patrick, and from Ireland into Scotland by Columba. It spread into Kent by Augustine who was in fact invited by the Kentish king.

Ireland was another top-down conversion process. And England delved into paganism soon after the fall of the Roman empire, so that wasn’t really a conversion at all. It was lost.

In one we have a man of peace. In the other we have a lecherous man who was morally bankrupt - having had sex with a nine year old child. Thus if Christians go against the ‘norm’ of Christ, we can test this. And if Moslems go with the ‘norm’ of Muhammed we can test this.

Your historical appraisal of Muhammad is as bad and cartoonish as your historical appraisal of Christianity’s spread.

Actually there was because Islam was one of the first to routinise violence as part of its religion.

Okay, let’s get this clear: Muslims did not demand conversion or death from non-Muslims. Both were allowed to practice their religions in Muslim lands.

In contrast, Christians routinely outlawed all religions besides orthodox Christianity, and killed/tortured anyone who did not obey. This was institutional practice in every Christian land until Christianity found itself at the margins of political power post-Renaissance.

The claim that Christianity did not engage in routine violence is simply preposterous. It is a long and document history, and it occured whenever Christianity had the upper political and military hands.