The Crusades

  • Thread starter Thread starter BCven86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was talking to a Protestant friend and the issue of the Crusades came up. I don’t know much about them and had trouble justifying the wars. Can anyone offer some resources or information on either how the Church justifies them and a good source for general information on the matter? I didn’t find any tracks on the site.

Thanks!
The Real History of the Crusades
By Thomas F. Madden
oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/Real-History-of-Crusades-by-Thomas-Madden.cfm.html

Crusade Myths
By Thomas F. Madden
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

THE CRUSADES 101
by James Akin
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/2002-02/article3.html

CRUSADING FOR THE TRUTH
By Robert P. Lockwood
catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603tbt.asp
 
This tired old complaint belongs in the non-Catholic section…
This is discussing the Catholic Crusades, is it not? These Crusades were put in place with the full authority of the RCC. Now you want it discussed in the non-Catholic section? These articles are in Catholic university libraries. Take a look at the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

" Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks."…
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.
  1. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?
    …No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, t groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, t separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. . Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress!"
    " How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground. "
 
I love this Church - and that’s why i’m going to say what i’m going to say.

Beyond the initial request for aid that Alexius Comnenus requested of us, - we were not justified in the Crusades.

To ignore the political element involved in this at the time is folly - Urban II was no warmonger, but at the same time he was seeking a way to bring peace to many of the warring Christian princes of Europe.

When the Byzantine Emperor approached us for aid, he saw this as an opportunity.

How many died on the way to Jerusalem - unprepared for the journey?

How many incidents of widespread Anti-Semitism by completely uneducated peasants who thought they were doing the Lord’s work occured? Our Eastern Orthodox Brethrens own towns were attacked by the un-organized masses of Peter the Hermits group!

And when the army finally arrived on the doorstep of the Byzantine Emperor he was appalled. What he requested were noblemen, knights, experienced troops.

He got some of those…and he got a horde of pilgrims that stirred trouble, poached from the lands of his subjects, and were USELESS on the battlefield beyond cannon fodder.

Furthermore, the greed of the French nobles overtook the oaths of fealty and aid sworn to Alexius.

We were supposed to help him regain land and secure Christendom. By removing the independent Emirs, we destroyed the buffer zone between the Byzantines and the more organized Islamic powers.

We might as well have put a “Yo Saladin, Kick our *($@#$#” sign on our backs.

Our goal in the Crusades was supposed to be the protection of the Byzantine Empire and all of Christendom. A protection given so that we may have reunited with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Instead - by the time of the 4th Crusade, when we could no longer control the armies that went to and from the Middle East, we basically sealed the Roman Catholic - Orthodox hatred for hundreds of years to come.

We sold out our spiritual obligation to feed the greed of Venetian merchants and bored French nobility.

And i lay blame not at the feet of the people who went and served loyally - they did it because they were instructed to do as such. It would be ridiculous to blame someone for their duty.

But the Pope and the assembled Kings, Dukes, etc have much to answer for. As leaders they had a responsibility to make this work. Instead, so many fell into petty infighting.
 
This is discussing the Catholic Crusades, is it not? These Crusades were put in place with the full authority of the RCC. Now you want it discussed in the non-Catholic section? These articles are in Catholic university libraries. Take a look at the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

"
I realize the difficulty in separating a dispassionate historical discussion of something like the Crusades from one’s anti-Catholicism when one thinks of them as one-sidedly unjust for reasons that are fundamentally religious in their nature. Some Islamic radicals, for example, go on and on about the Crusades as if they, and not Central Asians, destroyed the fabled Caliphate, and as if they were yesterday. They do it because they hate western civilization which they believe (or pretend to believe) and not themselves, is responsible for the social ills in their societies. Thus, they call secular western powers “Crusaders”, despite the fact that they obviously are not Crusaders, and despite the fact that the Crusades’ effect on the idealized Caliphate was minimal, if not actually helpful in extending its life span by a trifling degree.

In similar manner, the hatred some Eastern Orthodox bear for the Catholic Church is such that they view the history of the Crusades through the polarized lens of that hatred. It is really all part of a religious argument, not a real consideration of history as history. As you know, it was for that reason that the fixations some Orthodox have on the Fourth Crusade were relegated to the non-Catholic thread. They’re really part of a religious argument, whose purpose is to paint the Catholic Church as villainous. It’s like the distored Jack Chick “history” of the Inquisition. The purpose is not to examine the history of the Inquisition, but to suggest, by attributing villainy to the Catholic Church, that Catholicism is a false religion.

Anyone can convert any topic to a religious argument, and that’s what you’re doing here. That’s why your argument belongs in the non-Catholic section.
 
I love this Church - and that’s why i’m going to say what i’m going to say.

Beyond the initial request for aid that Alexius Comnenus requested of us, - we were not justified in the Crusades.

To ignore the political element involved in this at the time is folly - Urban II was no warmonger, but at the same time he was seeking a way to bring peace to many of the warring Christian princes of Europe.

When the Byzantine Emperor approached us for aid, he saw this as an opportunity.

How many died on the way to Jerusalem - unprepared for the journey?

How many incidents of widespread Anti-Semitism by completely uneducated peasants who thought they were doing the Lord’s work occured? Our Eastern Orthodox Brethrens own towns were attacked by the un-organized masses of Peter the Hermits group!

And when the army finally arrived on the doorstep of the Byzantine Emperor he was appalled. What he requested were noblemen, knights, experienced troops.

He got some of those…and he got a horde of pilgrims that stirred trouble, poached from the lands of his subjects, and were USELESS on the battlefield beyond cannon fodder.

Furthermore, the greed of the French nobles overtook the oaths of fealty and aid sworn to Alexius.

We were supposed to help him regain land and secure Christendom. By removing the independent Emirs, we destroyed the buffer zone between the Byzantines and the more organized Islamic powers.

We might as well have put a “Yo Saladin, Kick our *($@#$#” sign on our backs.

Our goal in the Crusades was supposed to be the protection of the Byzantine Empire and all of Christendom. A protection given so that we may have reunited with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Instead - by the time of the 4th Crusade, when we could no longer control the armies that went to and from the Middle East, we basically sealed the Roman Catholic - Orthodox hatred for hundreds of years to come.

We sold out our spiritual obligation to feed the greed of Venetian merchants and bored French nobility.

And i lay blame not at the feet of the people who went and served loyally - they did it because they were instructed to do as such. It would be ridiculous to blame someone for their duty.

But the Pope and the assembled Kings, Dukes, etc have much to answer for. As leaders they had a responsibility to make this work. Instead, so many fell into petty infighting.
I think it is a mistake to expect medieval efforts to have met modern standards. By the warmaking standards of today, as carried out by modern forces, even allied efforts in WWII were ham-handed, unnecessarily murderous and grotesquely inefficient.

There are profiteers and villains in every war. Sometimes they can be stifled or controlled, and sometimes they can’t. There are those who, for example, believe Roosevelt’s concessions to Stalin at Yalta were foolish at best, callous at worst. Some, on the other hand, believe he was only able to save Western Europe from communism by sacrificing the part (Eastern Europe) for the sake of the whole. Possibly historians will debate that a thousand years from now if there is some reason then to care about it.

But it really has to be admitted that the Crusades probably did extend the life of the Byzantine state beyond what it otherwise would have been, as did the war between the Mamluks and the Mongols and the war between the Ottomans and Timur. In retrospect, and considering the eventual outcome of the struggle between the various Islamic forces and the Byzantine state, it all seems to have been futile in any positive sense, and thus the negatives sometimes seem to be the only results.

It’s interesting to speculate on other outcomes. If, say, the Byzantine state really did pay for transport of the Franks to Palestine and provide 10,000 Byzantine troops to support the effort, as agreed in the Fourth Crusade, the Ottomans might never have become the power they became. It is interesting to think how it might have been different if the Byzantine state, itself, had sufficient transport so that nobody felt compelled to bring the vengeful and greedy Enrico Dandolo into the picture. It is interesting to think how the eventual outcome might have been different had Byzantine efforts to convert or at least enlist the Mongols as allies against the Turks succeeded. It is interesting to think how it would have been had the Pope had total control over the armies of the west instead of a tenuous moral authority over people who were superb warriors but politically chaotic and tending, always, to indiscipline. But none of that happened. All had the circumstances that they, in fact, had, and tried to do what they could with what they had.
 
The Crusades were instrumental in protecting Europe from the oncoming threat of Islam in Europe (hmmm why dont people talk bad of the Allied Army for stopping Hitler and the Axis powers??) read about the Crusades from reliable sources (www.NewAdvent.org, www.Catholic.com etc) as many modern-day historians have a tendency towards rewriting history for acclaim or wealth (e.g. ‘Hitlers Pope’ anyone? :P)

Speaking of the Crusades, there has just arisen a new one, an online one!

The Catholic Crusade for Jesus Christ is a cybercrusade for our Lord, to evangelize the millions, and correct errors that are common place, of the net.
If you are willing to become a Crusader and take Jesus’ words of going out and making disciples of all nations then welcome aboard.
Any Catholic who has a basic knowledge, or even a willingness to learn the basics are very welcome. God bless you all

%between%

The Catholic Crusade for Jesus Christ wants you!!

(click those links or PM me for further details, pray about it, Jesus may be calling you for this)
 
Western Europe was threatened by the rapid expansion of the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire was unable to hold them off on their own (Constantinople itself had been besieged on more than one occasion).
Yes, if I recall it was beseiged by other christians in the 4th Crusade.
 
After looking around I found some answers to my previous question. I am looking for more information that I didn’t find though.

Why we couldn’t have just ‘Put it all in God’s hands’ similarly to how Joshua marched around Jericho for a while until the walls fell down. Why should we have done anything but ‘live out the Gospel’?
There is a Filipino proverb: “Everything is on God’s mercy but man has to do his part.” Plus, let me tell you a story:

There was once a man who drowned in the ocean. He knew he couldn’t last longer, but he said to himself, 'Don’t worry, God will sure save me."
A boat came, and when the men in the boat asked, “Do you want any help?” The man replied, “No thanks, God will save me.”
The boat then continued its course, leaving the man struggling to come to the surface, still thinking that God will somehow send a miraculous sign to help him.
A few moments later, another boat came, and upon seeing the drowning man, the man in the boat asked, “Are you alright? We’ll get to you down there!” But the man answered, “No, thank you! God will save me.”
The operator continued to ask the man but the man was insistent that God will, in some form or other, do some miracle that will sure save him. Seeing that the man wouldn’t budge, the boat went away. Eventually the man could not continue this anymore, and thus he finally drowned and died.

The man then found himself in front of God’s Throne. Realizing he was dead, the man angrily asked, ‘Why didn’t you save me?’
God simply replied, ‘I sent you two boats; but apparently you still didn’t consider that enough.’
When Peter cut off the soldier’s ear in the garden, Jesus told Peter to put down his sword, not continue fighting. Would Jesus wanted have wanted us to return the hostility of the Muslims with more violence? or simply continue putting our trust in Him and live our life by his teachings?
The reason Jesus stopped Peter is because he is being an impediment in what He must undergo. Just moments before this incident happened, Jesus Himself ordered His disciples to buy a sword, to the point that they should give up their cloaks to get their hands on one (the cloak is a really valuable and a multi-purpose piece of clothing as it served as both a coat and a blanket to the point that Mosaic Law required that a cloak taken as a pledge must be returned to its proper owner at nightfall; without it, one is considered ‘stripped of one’s garments’ or ‘naked’):
He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.”
Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”
If the Crusades did not happen, then the Muslims would have spread out through Europe and Christianity would have been reduced to a small religion as everyone would have been converted to Islam. It’s a matter of legitimate self-defense; Peter got rebuked since he is attempting to defend Jesus at the wrong time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top