The Crusades

  • Thread starter Thread starter oneofmany
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

oneofmany

Guest
A program on the History channel about Mankind makes the Crusades seem like a pope took it into his head to slaughter all those who were not Christians, just because they weren’t Christians and take back Jerusalem. No mention other than that and the pope didn’t care how it was done, just do it and you would be forgiven of your sins and guaranteed you would go to heaven, no matter how bad your sins were.

Is this what popular culture teaches about the Crusades in schools and how close to facts is this? I know people on other web sites talk about the horrible Crusades and mostly blame Christians for it happening. It is called the worse thing ever to happen killing more people than any other war.:confused:
 
I watched the previous episode which covered Christ to Constantine. Not one Catholic (Roman or Orthodox) or traditional Protestant speaker in the entire episode. Their Christian spokesperson was from the site Crossexamined which has this as their statement of faith-

CrossExamined.org is an evangelical, inter-denominational Christian ministry. We seek to present evidence that the Bible is true. We do not require others in the body of Christ with whom we partner to hold certain positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. While we do believe that these issues are significant, our primary concerns are with the effects that false ideologies are having on the world and the body of believers (particularly our young people)

In other words one of those “all faiths are equally valid” churches. I wouldn’t take anything that program says seriously. Or anything on that channel for that matter.
 
Well I don’t know who they consulted for the section on the Crusades. It doesn’t seem they talked to any Catholic clergy at all. Maybe they talked to Muslims since it seems the pope just wanted to kill them all off. Very biased and one sided for sure.
 
Well I don’t know who they consulted for the section on the Crusades. It doesn’t seem they talked to any Catholic clergy at all. Maybe they talked to Muslims since it seems the pope just wanted to kill them all off. Very biased and one sided for sure.
I doubt they would talk with a serious Muslim scholar or imam. I don’t like labeling a show “liberal” but it’s hard not to with this series. Frankly I don’t plan to watch it anymore (I’d most likely be throwing things at the TV for the episode on the 14-1700s.) It’s just plan garbage.
 
All the wars of religious conquest in the middle east have been bad. All should be condemned.
 
You should know better than to trust mainstream media on Medieval history. It’s about 100 years behind current historical scholarship, and full of anti-Catholic bias.

I haven’t watched the videos myself yet, but I’ve heard the videos on this youtube channel are a great source of info about the crusades.
 
Thank you for this link. I am also in a religious studies class (comparative religion) and to cover part of Jewish History, our professor had us watch ‘Constantine’s Sword’ and likewise, I can’t help but feel as the OP in that this was not an accurate reflection of the Spanish Inquisition.
 
Well, according to my teacher at this time, that happened peacefully 🤷
I can tell your teacher at the time “And I’m Hatsune Miku!”.
I swear, historical revisionism is the reason why people find history to be boring.
 
I am a bit of a medieval history buff- especially in the military realm.

The Crusades which were more than a few in number, happened over the course of five hundred years. The reasons and dynamics of them is/was complex and multifaceted.

Don’t look to the Discovery Channel or simple internet Catholic sites seeking to pump up the “holy warrior” thing.

BOTH will give a simplistic and skewed version of history. Look to multiple sources, compare and learn.

It’s a huge subject.
 
A program on the History channel about Mankind makes the Crusades seem like a pope took it into his head to slaughter all those who were not Christians, just because they weren’t Christians and take back Jerusalem. No mention other than that and the pope didn’t care how it was done, just do it and you would be forgiven of your sins and guaranteed you would go to heaven, no matter how bad your sins were.

Is this what popular culture teaches about the Crusades in schools and how close to facts is this? I know people on other web sites talk about the horrible Crusades and mostly blame Christians for it happening. It is called the worse thing ever to happen killing more people than any other war.:confused:
Not at all close to the facts. Read any of the books by leading crusade historians Jonathan Riley-Smith and Thomas F. Madden. As an introduction I suggest to first read What Were the Crusades? and then move on to reading The Crusades: A History by Jonathan Riley-Smith. It destroys all the modern myths about the crusades, the crusaders and their motivations.

When Pope Urban called for the crusades there were two goals, as Riley-Smith writes: one, the “freeing of the eastern churches, and especially the church of Jerusalem, from the savagery and tyranny of the Muslims. This was the liberations of people, the baptized members of the Church.”

Second, “the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.” Which “had been vandalized on the orders of the Fatimid caliph Hakim. Christ’s cave-tomb had been leveled almost to the ground.”

The first crusades and crusaders did not have the intention to forcefully convert anyone. They were not wars against Muslims but wars for the liberation of Christians. In all the lands conquered, Muslims lived peacefully side by side with the crusaders, but they were required to pay the same tax that they had before always imposed on Christians.

The crusader was a new type of pilgrim, a penitential warrior pilgrim.

Riley-Smith: “The crusaders regarded themselves as pilgrims and while on crusade they engaged in characteristic devotional and liturgical exercises.”

Pope Urban: “If any men among you go there not because they desire earthly profit but only for the salvation of their souls and the liberation of the Church, we, acting as much on our own authority as on that of all the archbishops and bishops in the Gauls, through the mercy of almighty God and the prayers of the Catholic Church, relieve them of all penance imposed for their sins, of which they have made a genuine and full confession.”

Notice that their motivations were not allowed to be material. Notice also that the crusaders were not promised forgiveness of sins, but were relieved of any penance already imposed on them for their sins. They were required to make a full confession.

One crusader wrote about his motivations: “Considering how many are my sins and the love, clemency and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because when he was rich he became poor for our sake, I have determined to repay him on some measure for everything he has given me freely, although I am unworthy. And so I have decided to go to Jerusalem, where God was seen as man and spoke with men and to adore in the place where his feet trod.”

The crusades were not waged for material gain. Crusading was an expensive business. Most crusaders had to find a sponsor and sell or rent out their property. Noble families impoverished themselves by crusading, and when they returned home, all they had to bring back with them from the East was a relic, which they would then donate their local church or monastery.

Riley-Smith: "In the light of the evidence it is hard to believe that most crusaders were motivated by crude materialism. Given their knowledge and expectations and the economic climate in which they lived, the disposal of assets to invest in the fairly remote possibility of settlement in the East would have been a stupid gamble.

“The argument that the crusades were a response to economic conditions at home turns out to be grounded on dubious assumptions. Why did these interpretations hold for so long? Charters recording the pledging and selling of property and rights by crusaders have, after all, been in print for at least 100 years. The reason that so many historians overlooked them may have been that they were blinded by an abhorrence of religious and ideological violence, and by their inability to comprehend that it could have had any appeal. They forgot how intellectually respectable the Christian theory of holy war once was. It was easier to believe that the crusaders were too simple-minded to understand what they were doing; or to argue that they had been motivated, whatever they said, by a desire for material gain.”

Thomas F. Madden: “Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. They were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.”

I have above only addressed the first crusades. The crusades lasted 700 years, from their first preaching in 1095 to the fall of Hospitaller Malta in 1798.
 
Not at all close to the facts. Read any of the books by leading crusade historians Jonathan Riley-Smith and Thomas F. Madden. As an introduction I suggest to first read What Were the Crusades? and then move on to reading The Crusades: A History by Jonathan Riley-Smith. It destroys all the modern myths about the crusades, the crusaders and their motivations.

When Pope Urban called for the crusades there were two goals, as Riley-Smith writes: one, the “freeing of the eastern churches, and especially the church of Jerusalem, from the savagery and tyranny of the Muslims. This was the liberations of people, the baptized members of the Church.”

Second, “the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.” Which “had been vandalized on the orders of the Fatimid caliph Hakim. Christ’s cave-tomb had been leveled almost to the ground.”

The first crusades and crusaders did not have the intention to forcefully convert anyone. They were not wars against Muslims but wars for the liberation of Christians. In all the lands conquered, Muslims lived peacefully side by side with the crusaders, but they were required to pay the same tax that they had before always imposed on Christians.

The crusader was a new type of pilgrim, a penitential warrior pilgrim.

Riley-Smith: “The crusaders regarded themselves as pilgrims and while on crusade they engaged in characteristic devotional and liturgical exercises.”

Pope Urban: “If any men among you go there not because they desire earthly profit but only for the salvation of their souls and the liberation of the Church, we, acting as much on our own authority as on that of all the archbishops and bishops in the Gauls, through the mercy of almighty God and the prayers of the Catholic Church, relieve them of all penance imposed for their sins, of which they have made a genuine and full confession.”

Notice that their motivations were not allowed to be material. Notice also that the crusaders were not promised forgiveness of sins, but were relieved of any penance already imposed on them for their sins. They were required to make a full confession.

One crusader wrote about his motivations: “Considering how many are my sins and the love, clemency and mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because when he was rich he became poor for our sake, I have determined to repay him on some measure for everything he has given me freely, although I am unworthy. And so I have decided to go to Jerusalem, where God was seen as man and spoke with men and to adore in the place where his feet trod.”

The crusades were not waged for material gain. Crusading was an expensive business. Most crusaders had to find a sponsor and sell or rent out their property. Noble families impoverished themselves by crusading, and when they returned home, all they had to bring back with them from the East was a relic, which they would then donate their local church or monastery.

Riley-Smith: "In the light of the evidence it is hard to believe that most crusaders were motivated by crude materialism. Given their knowledge and expectations and the economic climate in which they lived, the disposal of assets to invest in the fairly remote possibility of settlement in the East would have been a stupid gamble.

“The argument that the crusades were a response to economic conditions at home turns out to be grounded on dubious assumptions. Why did these interpretations hold for so long? Charters recording the pledging and selling of property and rights by crusaders have, after all, been in print for at least 100 years. The reason that so many historians overlooked them may have been that they were blinded by an abhorrence of religious and ideological violence, and by their inability to comprehend that it could have had any appeal. They forgot how intellectually respectable the Christian theory of holy war once was. It was easier to believe that the crusaders were too simple-minded to understand what they were doing; or to argue that they had been motivated, whatever they said, by a desire for material gain.”

Thomas F. Madden: “Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. They were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.”

I have above only addressed the first crusades. The crusades lasted 700 years, from their first preaching in 1095 to the fall of Hospitaller Malta in 1798.
This post is just as biased as the “evil Crusades” idea put forward by some in academia and the MSM.

The Crusaders weren’t all noble, holy men, and they weren’t all merciless villains.

The First Crusade was of a different character than the subsequent ones. THere was religious sentiment in the First, though there was also the seeking of wealth. The religious aspects of the Second and later Crusades was greatly lessened and the Crusades became a kind of business and a chance to make war- which was the business of the knight when no war was available in the West.

The relationship between the Christians and Muslims was also complex. The musim “knights” were noblemen just as the Christian knights were and there was enormous respect between those who saw each other in the same social strata. The business of ransom- with humane treatment- was enormous in the High Medieval period and extending into the end of the 14th. c.

The nobles on either side would have likely seen more in common between them and the nobles on the other side than between them and the “riff raft” of the bulk of the fighting masses.

Read different sources. It’s complex.
 
This post is just as biased as the “evil Crusades” idea put forward by some in academia and the MSM.

The Crusaders weren’t all noble, holy men, and they weren’t all merciless villains.

The First Crusade was of a different character than the subsequent ones. THere was religious sentiment in the First, though there was also the seeking of wealth. The religious aspects of the Second and later Crusades was greatly lessened and the Crusades became a kind of business and a chance to make war- which was the business of the knight when no war was available in the West.

The relationship between the Christians and Muslims was also complex. The musim “knights” were noblemen just as the Christian knights were and there was enormous respect between those who saw each other in the same social strata. The business of ransom- with humane treatment- was enormous in the High Medieval period and extending into the end of the 14th. c.

The nobles on either side would have likely seen more in common between them and the nobles on the other side than between them and the “riff raft” of the bulk of the fighting masses.

Read different sources. It’s complex.
Surely it is complex, and I have read different sources, including contemporary Islamic views of the crusades. However, the Muslims had no real understanding of the personal motivations of the first crusaders.

Your objection that crusaders were not “all noble, holy men, and they weren’t all merciless villains” is not justified as I did not suppose that they were. However, the crusaders were, by and large, motivated by piety and not by any material gain. Of course, there were some crusaders that did long for riches. However, the evidence shows that most crusaders clearly understood the economic conditions and that they would in fact be impoverished. Jonathan Riley-Smith and Thomas F. Madden sufficiently address the economic conditions and the crusader’s understanding of them by using contemporary sources. The 19th and early 20th century view that crusaders were largely motivated by material gains is not very realistic historically.

I suggest that you invest some time in reading crusades histories by leading crusade historians from the late 20th and 21st century.
Read different sources. It’s complex.
Which sources do you recommend?
 
From a Catholic perspective I understand it that they had noble motives. Even today some high schools sport teams call them selves the Crusaders. If the Crusades were not noble but for evil reasons why does the church paint them as good?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top