The Crusades?

[Contarini]

I think on the whole they were not just, for the same reasons that the invasion of Iraq was not just. Had they stuck to a supporting role for the Byzantines then they would have been just. But it’s not an easy question, and a case can be made for them.

In a sense, I’m less bothered about whether the Crusades fit a just-war framework than about the destructive effect they had on Western Christian morality with regard to war (and on the status of Jews in Western Europe).

Edwin

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Look at it this way, Edwin. Without the work of some of the Crusaders, you wouldn’t have to worry about the effects on Western morality and the status of the Jews. . .

Because you’d be Muslim.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

The major crime that can successfully be laid at the Crusaders’ door in the Holy Land is the Massacre of Jerusalem. And even that does not compare with the systematic massacres of Christians for policy reasons that went on in cities the muslims took, like Acre and Antioch.

I do not deny this–but one of my points is that, as the Church teaches, the two or three or twenty barbaric acts of our enemies do not justify even the single barbaric act on our part. Yes, in the context of a long siege in difficult condition, the behavior of the Crusaders at Jerusalem is understandable, but that does not make it right.

Axion:

Remember the crusades were fought by armies, not clerics. There was a rule of war at the time that if a city that was besieged refused to surrender, and so cost the attacking army large casualties in taking it, then the population of the city were considered combattants, and subject to the fury and spoil of the attackers. The notion was, that the citizens had had the chance of a peaceful hand-over and had rejected it. Jerusalem held out to the last, and a large number of the Crusaders perished in the siege and assault.

You will have to show me evidence of this rule of war, because I don’t buy it. In the middle ages there were all sorts of (theoretical) restraints on violence, and from antiquity through the modern age the slaughter of non-combatants was considered at least barbaric if not unlawful.

Axion:

Now we can condemn the Crusaders for not practising exceptional mercy in the heat of the assault. But again, a massacre was not typical of the Christian practice on capturing a city.

I never said it was. In fact, YOU implied it was more the norm by saying it was the law of war at the time to put to the sword anyone who resisted rather than submit peacefully. But this debate is besides the point–my original argument was that sometimes (not necessarily with regularity) Crusaders acted with barbarity, and their behavior at Jerusalem proves this.

Axion:

If we are to use Jerusalem to condemn the Crusades, we have to ask say, was World War II to be condemned because of the bombing of civilians at Dresden or Horoshima?

I NEVER condemned the Crusades–read what I wrote. All I said was that the Crusdaers acted with barbarism at times. If you look at my original post, I too bemoaned the fact that the Crusades are often taken out of context; I also cited a scholar from St. Louis University (with whom I agree) who argues that the Crusades were essentially delayed wars of self-defense.

By the way, I do not condemn WW II for Dresden, but that does not mean we can’t condemn specific brutal or criminal acts that took place during WW II. And I am not saying that Dresden or Hiroshima should be condemned–that is a whole other debate that I am unwilling to engage at this point.

 

[Contarini]

Tantum ergo:

Look at it this way, Edwin. Without the work of some of the Crusaders, you wouldn’t have to worry about the effects on Western morality and the status of the Jews. . .

Because you’d be Muslim.

I think that’s highly dubious. Unless you’re talking about the wars against the Ottomans. Those were, in most cases, just wars. The medieval Crusades probably didn’t do much to protect Christendom. Indeed, the Fourth Crusade was one of the best things that ever happened from the point of view of Islamic conquest.

Besides, there are a good many Christians in Egypt, which has been Muslim for nearly 1400 years. So your argument is deeply flawed in multiple ways.

Edwin

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Contarini:

I think that’s highly dubious. Unless you’re talking about the wars against the Ottomans. Those were, in most cases, just wars. The medieval Crusades probably didn’t do much to protect Christendom. Indeed, the Fourth Crusade was one of the best things that ever happened from the point of view of Islamic conquest.

Besides, there are a good many Christians in Egypt, which has been Muslim for nearly 1400 years. So your argument is deeply flawed in multiple ways.

Edwin

Very true. Muslim expansion through Spain into Gaul had already been stopped by the Battle of Poitiers in 733, and from about 900 to 1100 there was a slow but fairly steady expansion of Christian holdings in northern Spain. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, Muslim controlled only a tiny corner of southern Spain.

Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire remained an effective barrier to Muslim expansion in the east, although it had lost control of some areas of Asia Minor in the 11th century. However, it has been plausibly argued that the Fourth Crusade radically undermined Byzantine power so that when Byzantines ejected their Latin overlords in 1282, Constantinople’s power was greatly reduced and unable to withstand Muslim expansion.

Perhaps more important for the prevention of a Muslim Empire in Europe were events after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, such as the Battle of Vienna (1529) or the naval victory of the Venetians over the Turks at Lepanto (1571).

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

. The difference between “renegades” and “official crusaders” is pretty difficult to determine and verges on circular reasoning. .

No. the difference is very easy to determine. The Official Crusades were organised armies of fighters who had taken vows and served under authorised leaders. The First Crusade, which set off after the Rhineland massacres, was such an official Crusade.

The groups who ravaged the Rhineland cities were unofficial groups of renegades who gathered together without official leadership or discipline, and were condemned at the time for their acts. Blaming their acts on the crusaders is like blaming the Allies in 1945 for the acts of the French “patriots” who strung up French woman who had dated Germans.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

I do not deny this–but one of my points is that, as the Church teaches, the two or three or twenty barbaric acts of our enemies do not justify even the single barbaric act on our part. Yes, in the context of a long siege in difficult condition, the behavior of the Crusaders at Jerusalem is understandable, but that does not make it right.

Indeed. However nor is it an excuse to be used to invalidate the over-all necessity of the Crusades themselves. Which were a war to protect the Christians of the east from constant massacre and assault.

You will have to show me evidence of this rule of war, because I don’t buy it. In the middle ages there were all sorts of (theoretical) restraints on violence, and from antiquity through the modern age the slaughter of non-combatants was considered at least barbaric if not unlawful.

The “rule” is quite well known. The accepted practice was that once the battering ram had struck the gates of a besieged city then it was a fight to the finish. As far as antiquity goes, the razing of defeated cities was accepted practice. Most cities of Antiquity have been despoiled and plundered at one time or another. Premier examples are Troy, and the cities of Canaan in the OT.

I NEVER condemned the Crusades–read what I wrote. All I said was that the Crusdaers acted with barbarism at times. If you look at my original post, I too bemoaned the fact that the Crusades are often taken out of context; I also cited a scholar from St. Louis University (with whom I agree) who argues that the Crusades were essentially delayed wars of self-defense.

That is my point too. But the thread is about whether the Crusades themselves were a just war. Examples of Crusader brutality given in isolation, serve as an argument that they were not - which is the currently dominant revisionist position. In arguing against that position, the true state of affairs has to be presented.

There is a tendency among some modern Christians (not necessarily yourself) to believe the right thing to do with regard to the Crusades is to take a position of apologising for them, running down the Christian misdeeds and not mentioning the Muslim ones, or the causes of the Wars. This may seem meek, but it disparages those who suffered and died in the cause of protecting fellow Christians, and it paints a false picture of Catholic Christianity as corrupt, conniving, murderous and duplicitous.

 

[miguel]

quote=alfredo

And

according to the Catholic Encyclopedia online:

“On 12 April, 1204, Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. The masterpieces of antiquity, piled up in public places and in the Hippodrome, were utterly destroyed. Clerics and knights, in their eagerness to acquire famous and priceless relics, took part in the sack of the churches. The Venetians received half the booty; the portion of each crusader was determined according to his rank of baron, knight, or bailiff, and most of the churches of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those of Constantinople.”

I don’t see how anyone can justify what happened during the Fourth Crusade.
[/quote]

The Venetians were lead by a guy (his name escapes me) who had an axe to grind with the people of Constantinople. His eyes had been gouged out as I recall. Revenge on the people of that city was his over-riding passion. The sacking of Constantinople was not part of the Pope’s plan. It was an act of revenge by a renegade participant. Obviously, this horrible event is not an example of a just war. And the east’s memory of it has no doubt prolonged the state of schism between east and west.

 

[Axion]

Contarini:

I think that’s highly dubious. Unless you’re talking about the wars against the Ottomans. Those were, in most cases, just wars. The medieval Crusades probably didn’t do much to protect Christendom. Indeed, the Fourth Crusade was one of the best things that ever happened from the point of view of Islamic conquest.

Not at all. Without the Medieval Crusades, Constantinople, the gateway to Europe, would probably have fallen to Islam in 1150, not 1450. The Muslims had conquered nearly all of Christian Asia Minor by 1070, when Alexius pleaded for aid, and were in clear sight of the city. The 200 years of Christian presence in the Holy Land took the pressure that would have otherwise swept aside Constantinople and seen the Muslim armies pour into Europe at a time when the European states could not have resisted them.

Even in the 1500s, when the Christians had better technology, cannons, gunpowder and sea power, the Muslims still got as far as Vienna. In the 1100s, with a divided Europe, Christianity would have been wiped out.

Besides, there are a good many Christians in Egypt, which has been Muslim for nearly 1400 years. So your argument is deeply flawed in multiple ways.

How many Christians are there in Turkey, where once there were many Millions? How many in the former Christian lands of Morrocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, home of St Augustine?

Answer - virtually none. Christianity has been driven out.

In Egypt a minority survive, fearful and persecuted. There are other small minorities in Syria and the Holy Land.

 

[miguel]

alfredo:

But according to the online Catholic encyclopedia: “most of the churches of the West were enriched with ornaments stripped from those of Constantinople”
Why was the Catholic Church of the West so eager to enrich its Churches in the West with “ornaments” plundered from the Eastern Orthodox Churches? I read that even today, St. Mark’s of Venice contains treasures from the Fourth Crusade. Has there ever been a condemnation of exhibiting this plunder in Catholic Churches?

Good question. It also crossed my mind. I don’t know if restitution had ever been considered on any of the plundered items. Maybe it would have if Constantinople had not fallen to the Muslims. And in hindsight, at least these items didn’t ultimately end up in Muslim hands.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Very true. Muslim expansion through Spain into Gaul had already been stopped by the Battle of Poitiers in 733, and from about 900 to 1100 there was a slow but fairly steady expansion of Christian holdings in northern Spain. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, Muslim controlled only a tiny corner of southern Spain.

Problem was, the main threat was in the East - not Spain.

Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire remained an effective barrier to Muslim expansion in the east, although it had lost control of some areas of Asia Minor in the 11th century.

It lost control of ALL Asia Minor after the Turkish attack at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Muslim troops were raiding and destroying up to the gates of Constantinople. They had already massacred the Christian Armenians and Georgians. This was why the Emperor **begged ** for help from the West.

However, it has been plausibly argued that the Fourth Crusade radically undermined Byzantine power so that when Byzantines ejected their Latin overlords in 1282, Constantinople’s power was greatly reduced and unable to withstand Muslim expansion.

So the Byzantines ejected the Latins in 1282. When did the city fall? 1453! This argument is like saying that France fell to the Germans in 1940 because it had been weakened by the Spanish in 1770!

In fact the Crusades saved Constantinople and the Christian East for over two centuries by pushing the battlefront 500 miles farther south and east.

Perhaps more important for the prevention of a Muslim Empire in Europe were events after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, such as the Battle of Vienna (1529) or the naval victory of the Venetians over the Turks at Lepanto (1571).

The point is, without the Crusades, the Battle of Vienna would have been in 1229, when europe was far less able to resist.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

Problem was, the main threat was in the East - not Spain.

It lost control of ALL Asia Minor after the Turkish attack at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Muslim troops were raiding and destroying up to the gates of Constantinople. They had already massacred the Christian Armenians and Georgians. This was why the Emperor **begged ** for help from the West.

So the Byzantines ejected the Latins in 1282. When did the city fall? 1453! This argument is like saying that France fell to the Germans in 1940 because it had been weakened by the Spanish in 1770!

In fact the Crusades saved Constantinople and the Christian East for over two centuries by pushing the battlefront 500 miles farther south and east.

The point is, without the Crusades, the Battle of Vienna would have been in 1229, when europe was far less able to resist.

We will just have to agree to disagree–I don’t see the Muslim threat in the 11th century as all that great. Indeed, the first crusade was successful in part because of the disarray of the Muslims at this same time. I also hold to the view that the fourth crusade crippled Constantinople and contributed in the longrun to the final fall of Byzantium.

This is all rsther off the initial topic of whether the Crusades were just wars. I reject the premise of he question, since the just war doctrine is conceived to apply to nation states at war, and these multinational wars fit awkwardly into the doctrine. But let us assume that the doctine applies:

1. Damaging effect of the aggressors must be grave and permanent–debatable, nut let us assume the Muslims would have continued to perform acts of violence against Christian.
2. All other means to put an end have ben shown impossibe–debatable; it is not clear that diplomacy was exhausted, but let us assume it was.
3. There must be a serious prospect of success–after the first few crusades, this condition was met less and less; by the fifth crusade things were pretty desperate (trying to capture Egypt and trade it for Jerusalem).
4. Use of arms must not produce evils graver than those eliminated–highly debatable.

Overall, at best the Crusades are difficult to justify as just wars. I happen to think that some of them are not at all just (the fourth crusade is the most obvious example). So, the answer to the poll question appears to me obviously “some but not all.”

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

We will just have to agree to disagree–I don’t see the Muslim threat in the 11th century as all that great.

Well if you won’t accept plain facts - such as have been shown to you in this thread, then I suppose you’ll be able to continue to shut your eyes and cling on to your pre-existing prejudices.

Sorry. But when you spend a lot of time researching facts and presenting them, and someone then responds with a blunt refusal to acknowledge those facts, it is eceedingly irritating.

Indeed, the first crusade was successful in part because of the disarray of the Muslims at this same time.

So if there was no threat, why was the entire Byzantine Empire outside Greece overrun by the Turks in 1071? I’m sure the murdered Christians of Nicea, Ephesus, Smyrna, Antioch, Sebastea, Armenia felt a threat of some sort. And why did the Byzantine emperor beg for help repeatedly from the west which he despised? Any answer for this?

The First Crusade was successful because of the zeal of the Crusaders, because it came as a surprise to the Muslim states of the Levant. None of this detracts from the power of the Turks who faced Europe.

I also hold to the view that the fourth crusade crippled Constantinople and contributed in the longrun to the final fall of Byzantium.

What caused the fall of Byzantium, Anatolia, Greece, Bulgaria, the Balkans, Armenia and Hungary, was Turkish Islamic aggression. All but constantinople were not subject to conquest by the Crusaders 200 years before. Why did they fall?

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

Well if you won’t accept plain facts - such as have been shown to you in this thread, then I suppose you’ll be able to continue to shut your eyes and cling on to your pre-existing prejudices.

Sorry. But when you spend a lot of time researching facts and presenting them, and someone then responds with a blunt refusal to acknowledge those facts, it is eceedingly irritating.

I’m sorry–I think the tenor of my post came across as too terse. What I meant was that we seemed to have reached a point of difference that was irresolvable in context of a discussion thread. Perhaps I am merely shutting my eyes and clinging to prejudices–whatever those may be since, as I have pointed out repeatedly, I believe the Crusades are often misrepresented and that the Crusaders get a bad rap.

I found this a stimulating and lively debate–perhaps the most interesting I have been involved with in these forums. We have presented our sides, we don’t agree. There is no malice in this.

As for the Muslim threat in the 11th century, as I interpret the situation, the Muslims did pose a grave threat to Byzantium. However, I think you exaggerate the overall threat posed by the Muslims. Byzanto-Muslim affairs in Asia Minor tended to ebb and flow, and the late 11th century was a low point. The rise of the Seljuk Turks was made worse by internal struggles at Constantinople–if the Byzantines got their act together I suspect they could have recovered from some of the advances made against them in Asia Minor. Also, at the same time the Normans were busy driving the last vestiges of Byzantine control from Italy–if Byzantium did not have to face problems on multiple fronts, they may have responded better to the Turkish advance.

The crusaders were successful because of their zeal and their militray superiority (the Muslims had a pretty hard tme with heavy mounted knights), but internal political strife also prevented the Muslims from setting up as effective a resistence. And this is another reason I think that the Musilm threat to Europe at this time was not very great. There was not a single “Muslim Empire”, but rather a series of Caliphates which did not always get along or cooperate.

So, again, I aplogize for my prior bluntness. I do not refuse to acknowledge the facts you carefully presented; I do however interpret differently the significance of the facts you present. This necessarily leads me to a different set of conlcusions. I look forward to future debates, as I have found this most rewarding.

 

[miguel]

miguel:

The Venetians were lead by a guy (his name escapes me) who had an axe to grind with the people of Constantinople. His eyes had been gouged out as I recall. Revenge on the people of that city was his over-riding passion. The sacking of Constantinople was not part of the Pope’s plan. It was an act of revenge by a renegade participant. Obviously, this horrible event is not an example of a just war. And the east’s memory of it has no doubt prolonged the state of schism between east and west.

Dandolo was the doge of Venice. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions his eyes being burned out by the emperor Manuel Comnenus of Constantinople. But it doesn’t really suggest this as a reason for the excessive brutality of the Venetians against fellow Christians during the sack of Constantinople. But it does say that Dandolo had a role in it. Dr. Warren H. Carroll strongly suggests Dandolo’s revenge-seeking as the root cause in his multi-volume Church history. It seems like a plausible explanation to me. I don’t know how Eastern Orthodox scholars view this, or if they blame the Pope. But if it really was the act of a renegade, maybe another barrier against East-West reunification could be removed.

 

[Contarini]

Axion:

And even that does not compare with the systematic massacres of Christians for policy reasons that went on in cities the muslims took, like Acre and Antioch.

Could you give me a reference for this? Are you talking about the final fall of Acre at the end of the 13th century? One always hears the comparison between the sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade and Saladin’s capture of the city, which was apparently far more humane. I’ve always suspected that Saladin may have been more exceptional than is often admitted, but I don’t have solid evidence.

I haven’t done other than general reading on the subject since I read about half of Runciman’s history as a teenager. I know that some more recent studies put the Crusades in a much more positive light.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Axion:

Not at all. Without the Medieval Crusades, Constantinople, the gateway to Europe, would probably have fallen to Islam in 1150, not 1450. The Muslims had conquered nearly all of Christian Asia Minor by 1070, when Alexius pleaded for aid, and were in clear sight of the city. The 200 years of Christian presence in the Holy Land took the pressure that would have otherwise swept aside Constantinople and seen the Muslim armies pour into Europe at a time when the European states could not have resisted them.

Even in the 1500s, when the Christians had better technology, cannons, gunpowder and sea power, the Muslims still got as far as Vienna. In the 1100s, with a divided Europe, Christianity would have been wiped out.

The problem with this view is that you assume that the medieval Seljuks were as formidable as the later Ottomans. Muslims in the Crusading era were divided. They did a good job of overrunning Anatolia (which the Crusaders did not permanently recapture), but whether they could have captured Constantinople is far from certain.

Axion:

In Egypt a minority survive, fearful and persecuted. There are other small minorities in Syria and the Holy Land.

Right. So your claim that except for the Crusades I would “be a Muslim” is clearly unfounded. I might be, but I might not, even if (which I find highly doubtful) the divided Muslims of the 12th century could have conquered Europe. (More realistically, I suppose they might have captured Constantinople, and thus given the Ottomans a stronger base.

Furthermore, from what I’ve read it would appear that the lot of Middle Eastern Christians substantially worsened as a result of the Crusades (though the Mongol conquests had a lot to do with it as well).

One final note–you refer to Christendom in the 12th century as “divided,” but one of the major reasons they were divided later was the Crusades. Clearly at the time of the First Crusade the division was not a hard and fast one, or Alexius’s appeal would not have been possible.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Axion:

So the Byzantines ejected the Latins in 1282. When did the city fall? 1453! This argument is like saying that France fell to the Germans in 1940 because it had been weakened by the Spanish in 1770!

That’s not an unreasonable hypothesis, actually, except that there was (as far as I know) no such war in 1770. However, there was a major colonial war between the French and British ending in 1763. I think a good case could be made that if the French had prevailed in North America and India, the relative positions of France and Germany in 1940 might have been very different.

Edwin

 

[Hospitaller]

Vox Borealis:

my original argument was that sometimes (not necessarily with regularity) Crusaders acted with barbarity, and their behavior at Jerusalem proves this.

You ought to look at the events in context a little better. The universal rule in both East and West at the time was that if a city negotiated surrender, the inhabitants would not be harmed. If, however, the city felt it could withstand siege, did not negotiate, and was captured, then the victors had between two to three days to do as they pleased. The garrison at Jerusalem felt confidant they could withstand siege, thinking that a releif army from Egypt would soon arrive and annihilate the Crusaders. They were wrong.

In the last day before the city was captured, the chaplains ordered the hungry, dehydrated troops to circle the city praying. To mock them, the Muslim garrison set up crosses on the walls and began to abuse them in various ways in the sight of the soldiers on the ground. This was the last straw for the embattled soldiers, and it went on and on until many of the Crusaders were literally screaming in frustration and uttering threats of bloody vengeance.

The next day, as you know, the Christian troops, all fired up, took the city. It’s commonly believed that between 30,000 and 70,000 people and up were killed when the city fell to the siege, but the actual number was far lower than that. Only about 3,000, according to a contemporary Muslim account. The commanders quickly began to try and reign in their troops, some with more success than others.

I apologize for the paucity of information here. I don’t have time right at this moment to collect all my sources.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

I’m sorry–I think the tenor of my post came across as too terse. What I meant was that we seemed to have reached a point of difference that was irresolvable in context of a discussion thread. Perhaps I am merely shutting my eyes and clinging to prejudices–whatever those may be since, as I have pointed out repeatedly, I believe the Crusades are often misrepresented and that the Crusaders get a bad rap.

I found this a stimulating and lively debate–perhaps the most interesting I have been involved with in these forums. We have presented our sides, we don’t agree. There is no malice in this.

Yes. I admit to getting a bit ratty on this subject too. I do not disagree with much of what you say. It’s just that I have got irritated recently, with all the flak being thrown at the crusaders on discussion boards and elsewhere. I think it is important to present the other point of view and defend people whose actions are being blackened, partly in a misguided attempt to blacken modern Christianity…

As for the Muslim threat in the 11th century, as I interpret the situation, the Muslims did pose a grave threat to Byzantium. However, I think you exaggerate the overall threat posed by the Muslims. Byzanto-Muslim affairs in Asia Minor tended to ebb and flow, and the late 11th century was a low point. The rise of the Seljuk Turks was made worse by internal struggles at Constantinople–if the Byzantines got their act together I suspect they could have recovered from some of the advances made against them in Asia Minor. Also, at the same time the Normans were busy driving the last vestiges of Byzantine control from Italy–if Byzantium did not have to face problems on multiple fronts, they may have responded better to the Turkish advance.

There was lots going on in Europe at the time. If the Christian lands had ever been united they would have stood a much better chance of standing against Islam which GENERALLY was more united. Instead the different Christian states have always quarrelled and warred.

The crusaders were successful because of their zeal and their militray superiority (the Muslims had a pretty hard tme with heavy mounted knights), but internal political strife also prevented the Muslims from setting up as effective a resistence. And this is another reason I think that the Musilm threat to Europe at this time was not very great. There was not a single “Muslim Empire”, but rather a series of Caliphates which did not always get along or cooperate.

Weren’t there just two major caliphates? (Three including spain). There was Egypt and Turks