The Crusades

[Montalban]

"The Pope and the West were at first delighted by the news of the fall of Constantinople… But when the pope heard of the atrocities of the sack he was deeply shocked. Even so, he was able to reconcile himself to the fait accompli.
Mayer, H. E., (1988), “The Crusades” (2nd Ed.), (Oxford University Press; Oxford), pp205-206

This is in reference to the Fourth Crusade in which Catholic forces attacked not the Moslems, but the Orthodox Christian eastern Roman Empire.

How was such a crusade justifiable?

 

[Teflon93]

"The Pope and the West were at first delighted by the news of the fall of Constantinople… But when the pope heard of the atrocities of the sack he was deeply shocked. Even so, he was able to reconcile himself to the fait accompli.
Mayer, H. E., (1988), “The Crusades” (2nd Ed.), (Oxford University Press; Oxford), pp205-206

This is in reference to the Fourth Crusade in which Catholic forces attacked not the Moslems, but the Orthodox Christian eastern Roman Empire.

How was such a crusade justifiable?

Are you saying the objective of the Fourth Crusade was to sack Constantinople?

I thought the objective was the Holy Land, but the Venetians who bankrolled it redirected it to Constantinople to collect a debt, which led to the eventual sacking of the city.

The sacking itself certainly was not justified under anything but brigandage. The original objective may have been justified if when called they were heading to the Holy Land as the first three Crusades did.

 

[Montalban]

Are you saying the objective of the Fourth Crusade was to sack Constatinople?

As Meyer points out in his book there’s two schools of thought on this issue. He calls (page 201) the two positions the ‘chance theory’ and the ‘intrigue theory’. The former holds that the attack was just opportunisim. He notes that the latter is backed by the fact that before they undertook to go on crusade the Ventians had made a commercial pact with Egypt… which said that the crusade would be diverted to Constantinople (you’ll be happy to note he actually says Byzantium)

But what is undeniable is that it happened. And it must have had a plan behind it - because it’s very hard to not plan a seige and an attack.

What’s also undeniable is how quickly the Pope was able to accomadate the situation within his own conscience. Although claims have been made that he excommunicated all those who undertook this crusade, we find only a decade later the church officers of these conqueored lands taking part in the Lateran Council

 

[quasimodo]

When the pope learned of the plans to sack the city and he warned the crusaders that they would be excommunicated if they, in fact, carried out their plans. When they sacked the city, they were excommunicated. Don’t blame the church for the sacking - blame the Venetians (if memory servers).

“Why did they sack the city?” you ask. Those on this crusade were not particularly of a religious frame of mind. They sacked d the city because that is where the gold was - and, if I recall properly, the people of the city had begged for help (leading to the earlier crusades) and had not helped those who had come to their aid in those earlier crusades - or so the 4th crusaders felt.

 

[Teflon93]

As Meyer points out in his book there’s two schools of thought on this issue. He calls (page 201) the two positions the ‘chance theory’ and the ‘intrigue theory’. The former holds that the attack was just opportunisim. He notes that the latter is backed by the fact that before they undertook to go on crusade the Ventians had made a commercial pact with Egypt… which said that the crusade would be diverted to Constantinople (you’ll be happy to note he actually says Byzantium)

Byzantium is a wonderful name, isn’t it? I am partial to Constantinople myself, and if it made a better national descriptor, would have no problem referring to the Constantinopolitan Empire. In the excellent Teaching Company lecture series on the subject, the lecturer described it chiefly as a tragic comedy of errors moreso than a well-executed attack.

But what is undeniable is that it happened. And it must have had a plan behind it - because it’s very hard to not plan a seige and an attack.

You are correct that Constantinople, probably the best-fortified city in the world in its age, certainly could not be sacked except through the best-laid plans or amazing luck.

What’s also undeniable is how quickly the Pope was able to accomadate the situation within his own conscience. Although claims have been made that he excommunicated all those who undertook this crusade, we find only a decade later the church officers of these conqueored lands taking part in the Lateran Council

Weren’t these two separate sets of people? I’m VERY fuzzy on it, having last looked into the 4th Crusade a couple of years’ back, but I thought he excommunicated those who took part in the sack but not others. I suppose it is always possible that some of these who were excommunicated repented—you might recall a certain incident involving an emperor standing in the snow until his was lifted earlier in the era—but the Church typically did not have a revolving door for the excommunicated as I understand it.

It should also be noted that excommunication was a much more horrible penalty in the 12th and 13th centuries than we can easily conceive of today. It essentially branded one with the mark of Cain throughout Europe, and was dreaded.

But again, the sack itself was not justified, and much of the current distaste for the Crusades stems from the 4th Crusade for this reason.

 

[Teflon93]

Since you’ve asked a question regarding justification for an act of war, this might help:

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. **The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.**

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict.** "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109 **

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

As someone who have been intimately involved with Orthodoxy over the last year and a half I hope that I can speak with less of an agenda and perhaps a bit more objectivity than either the poster or the author which whom he quotes. I’m personally not a fan of the Erdmann Thesis or what Dr. Mayer did with it.

I’m sorry… I’m just not the typical self-loathing Westerner who has to self-condemn in order to give the appearance of objectivity.

Far too many ‘objective’ historians, since the reformation, have crafted a ‘western’ identity at the expense of any positive recognition given to the Roman Catholic Church for my taste. Your post is a rehash of the old PC Myth that the Crusades were an early example of the West’s predatory imperialism pedaled by secular revisionists and Muslim Propagandists.

Predatory imperialism? Hardy. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action - one that was long overdue. As he explained, he was calling for the Crusade because without any defensive action, “the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked” by the Turks and other Muslim forces. After admonishing his flock to keep peace among themselves, he turned their attention to the East:

For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the msot of you have heard, the Turks and the Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania (the Greek empire) as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destory that vile race from the lands of our friends… Moreover, Christ commands it.

~Pope Urban II, “Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, according to Fulcher of Chartres,” quoted in Bongers, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, 382 ff., trans. in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds. A Source Book for Midieval History (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513-17.

Note that the pope says nothing about conversion or conquest toward our Christian Brothers or of the Muslim Aggressors into Christian Lands. In point of fact, is that he ‘beseeched’ for ‘aid to those Christians’ and to ‘destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends’. Period.

If you are looking for a scapegoat for the ‘diversion of those Frankish forces who overcame Constantinople’ look no further than Enrico Dandolo. Of course, such doesn’t not fit your agenda to smear the tens of thousands of Western Christians who sacrificed their lives for, complete strangers, who were their Eastern Christian Brothers in harms way now does it?

It was this same kind of narrow-minded divisiveness which lost Christendom it’s Eastern Territories. You haven’t learned a thing have you? Our Lord and Saviour clearly said “No Kingdom stands divided” and yet you are willing to continue and drive a wedge between us for petty gain.

Very disappointing I must say.

 

[Montalban]

As someone who have been intimately involved with Orthodoxy over the last year and a half I hope that I can speak with less of an agenda and perhaps a bit more objectivity than either the poster or the author which whom he quotes. I’m personally not a fan of the Erdmann Thesis or what Dr. Mayer did with it.

Just a small point. He doesn’t mention Erdmann (I assume too you mean Carl Erdmann) but refers to Louis de Mas-Latrie.

Then for some reason instead of dealing with this you jump back 200 years to look at the First Crusade

Anyway, getting back to the Fourth Crusade, Innocent III called the period “God’s miracle”
Barber, M. The Two Cities. Routledge (London, 1992), p132
Though Barber disagrees with the ‘intrigue’ theory.

It’s worth noting that he mentions that prior to the attack on Constaninople the Crusaders had already attacked another Christian city; Zara (p131) - which had revolted from Venice and was currently under Hungarian protection.

I’m sorry… I’m just not the typical self-loathing Westerner who has to self-condemn in order to give the appearance of objectivity.

Funny then that the Pope expressed his regrets. You disgree with him?

 

[Church_Militant]

Funny then that the Pope expressed his regrets.

In that case…the matter is settled.

 

[chrisb]

Just a small point. He doesn’t mention Erdmann (I assume too you mean Carl Erdmann) but refers to Louis de Mas-Latrie.

Then for some reason instead of dealing with this you jump back 200 years to look at the First Crusade

With a topic as general as ‘The Crusades’ I thought it would be fitting to at least establish the original premise… which Pope Urban II does very well, in my opinion.

Anyway, getting back to the Fourth Crusade, Innocent III called the period “God’s miracle”
Barber, M. The Two Cities. Routledge (London, 1992), p132
Though Barber disagrees with the ‘intrigue’ theory.

It’s all good and well to quote sources but how about ‘first sources’… I, personally, would like to know ‘what’ was particularly ‘miraculous’ about the Fourth Crusade. I’m not sure one should assume, as you appear want to do, that such is in reference to the sack of Christian Cities. You’re taking far too much liberity with the data in my opinion.

It’s worth noting that he mentions that prior to the attack on Constaninople the Crusaders had already attacked another Christian city; Zara (p131) - which had revolted from Venice and was currently under Hungarian protection.

Yes it is worth noting isn’t it. It’s also worth noting that the Crusaders obliged Dandolo to sack Zara over the protests of the pope. It’s also worth noting that it was at Zara that the Crusaders were offered money to overthrow the imperial government at Constantinople on behalf of the son of the deposed emperor Isaac II Angelos. On June 23, 1203, the Crusaders arrived at Constantinople and in July removed Emperor Alexios III in favor of the young Alexios and his father. It was only afterwards, in April 13, 1204 that the city was taken over by the Crusaders and a Latin Empire of Constantinople was founded, lasting from 1204-1261.

Funny then that the Pope expressed his regrets. You disagree with him?

Expressing regret shouldn’t presume culpability. I express regret for the death of love ones all the time with my co-workers but it doesn’t mean that I murdered them. The fact still remains that in the broad scheme of things the Popes as the Leaders of the Western Christian World is obliged to accept a certain amount of responsibility for the failed execution of his own Crusades. I have not problem accepting such ideas of personal sorrow over such things but to posit that such incriminates them for every individual act, as if it was by his own plan, is simply unacceptable in my opinion.

Trust me… I know it’s tempting to smear the Roman Catholic Church, and Western Civilization for that matter, with all the ground work laid out for us by critics and cynics, within and without. For me there is something too convenient about it all. It doesn’t sit well with me knowing when it comes to assaulting Rome, everyone has an ally (Secularists, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, etc). Sure the fodder is great but it just doesn’t sit well with me that the enemy of my enemy is my friend when it comes to these groups all working together to smear the Western Church.

 

[Montalban]

In that case…the matter is settled.

Apparently not for Catholics Several posts in two threads show Catholics denying anything regrettable.

Chrisb hints it’s a smear campaign to deal with what the Pope accepts

 

[Montalban]

With a topic as general as ‘The Crusades’ I thought it would be fitting to at least establish the original premise… which Pope Urban II does very well, in my opinion.

The title is ‘the Crusades’ the OP is the 4th. But you’re comments are most welcome.

It’s all good and well to quote sources but how about ‘first sources’… I, personally, would like to know ‘what’ was particularly ‘miraculous’ about the Fourth Crusade. I’m not sure one should assume, as you appear want to do, that such is in reference to the sack of Christian Cities. You’re taking far too much liberity with the data in my opinion.

I don’t understand your objection - other than you have some kind of feeling against it.

Yes it is worth noting isn’t it. It’s also worth noting that the Crusaders obliged Dandolo to sack Zara over the protests of the pope.

According to Barber, only the Venetians were excommunicated - those who actually did it had their excommunications lifted so they could continue on with the crusades/

It’s also worth noting that it was at Zara that the Crusaders were offered money to overthrow the imperial government at Constantinople on behalf of the son of the deposed emperor Isaac II Angelos. On June 23, 1203, the Crusaders arrived at Constantinople and in July removed Emperor Alexios III in favor of the young Alexios and his father. It was only afterwards, in April 13, 1204 that the city was taken over by the Crusaders and a Latin Empire of Constantinople was founded, lasting from 1204-1261.

Yes they were bought for money.

Expressing regret shouldn’t presume culpability.

Indeed. The present Pope’s not responsible.
“In particular, we cannot forget what happened in the month of April 1204,” the Pope said, in reference to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders. “How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust.”
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/30/wpope30.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/30/ixworld.html

“It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret.”
ewtn.com/footsteps/words/CHRISTODOULOS_5_4.htm

Trust me… I know it’s tempting to smear the Roman Catholic Church, and Western Civilization for that matter, with all the ground work laid out for us by critics and cynics, within and without. For me there is something too convenient about it all. It doesn’t sit well with me knowing when it comes to assaulting Rome, everyone has an ally (Secularists, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, etc). Sure the fodder is great but it just doesn’t sit well with me that the enemy of my enemy is my friend when it comes to these groups all working together to smear the Western Church.

How’s it a smear when the Pope regrets what happened?

 

[Montalban]

Some Crusaders stayed on, to be granted various fiefs. Most, however, returned home, brimming over with plunder. They were still technically excommunicants, but the great victory at Constantinople persuaded Innocent to remove the ban.
crusades.boisestate.edu/4th/13.shtml

 

[Teflon93]

In that case…the matter is settled.

This is what remains a mystery to me with Montalban.

It would be one thing had the Pope NOT condemned the sack of Constantinople, but he did. In excommunicating those deemed responsible, he gave the harshest penalty possible.

So what’s the quarrel with the Church on this one?

After all, the Byzantine Emperor knew full well what tends to happen when one doesn’t pay armies in one’s employ. There was a long trail of dead Imperial predecessors to testify to it.

 

[Montalban]

This is what remains a mystery to me with Montalban.

Well I’m not Catholic, so just 'cause he says it’s settled doesn’t mean I think it is. So I see from these threads neither do you

 

[Axion]

The question at the start of this thread is incredibly misleading since the 4th Crusade was never organised to attack Christian lands. Nor was any justification made for it.

The pope immediately excommunicated the Crusaders for attacking Zara even though one of the excuses made by the Venetians was that this would provide more resources for the Crusade. He again excommunicated those who went on to Constantinople at the invitation of the Emperor and got involved in imperial intrigue there - which is what led to the eventual sack.

The fact that this was very strongly condemned by the Church AT THE TIME - not by later historical revisionists, shows the truth of the matter.

 

[metal1633]

Some Crusaders stayed on, to be granted various fiefs. Most, however, returned home, brimming over with plunder. They were still technically excommunicants, but the great victory at Constantinople persuaded Innocent to remove the ban.
crusades.boisestate.edu/4th/13.shtml

I was going to post the Boise link. Oh well. Here it is anyway. If anyone is interested in what happened…

crusades.boisestate.edu/4th/index.shtml

 

[chrisb]

The question at the start of this thread is incredibly misleading since the 4th Crusade was never organised to attack Christian lands. Nor was any justification made for it.

The pope immediately excommunicated the Crusaders for attacking Zara even though one of the excuses made by the Venetians was that this would provide more resources for the Crusade. He again excommunicated those who went on to Constantinople at the invitation of the Emperor and got involved in imperial intrigue there - which is what led to the eventual sack.

The fact that this was very strongly condemned by the Church AT THE TIME - not by later historical revisionists, shows the truth of the matter.

Grace and Peace,

This fact isn’t useful for his attempt to discredit the Western Church. You’re post will be ignored but I, for one, appreciate it.

I wonder how many deaths he has overlooked to point out the few who allowed their petty passions to overwhelm what was actually motivated as an act of charity to Christians abroad?

For centuries the West bled for the East and all they can see are enemies. Alexius I Comnenus enraged the earlier Crusaders by engaging in negotiations with Egypt. Another Byzantine emperor, Manuel I Comnenus (1143-1180), likewise earned the contempt of the Crusaders for dealing with the Turks, and many blamed him for the disaster of the Second Crusade. Later, of course, Emperor Frederick II and others entered into pacts with the warriors of jihad themselves. But according to Islamic law, Muslims may only conclude truces during jihad warfare with non-Muslims when they are in a position of weakness and need time to gather strength to fight again. Those who concluded agreements with the Crusaders did not lose sight of this principle and never entered into a pact that ultimately weakened the Muslims’ position.

The invitation from John VI was a prime example of Christian shortsightedness. The Muslims arrived in Eastern Europe in 1354. In 1357, they captured the imposing Byzantine fortress of Adrianople. In 1359, Sultan Murad I founded the janissary corps, a crack force of young men who were seized from their Christian families as boys, enslaved, and forcibly converted to Islam. According to historian Godfrey Goodwin, *“No child might be recruited who was converted to Islam other than by his own free will- if the choice between life and death may be called free will.”

*I don’t see anyone who is championing Eastern Christendom taking responsibility for such a gross offense to the faithful of God. Thanks John VI Cantacuzenus!

It is my firm belief that if unity would have been maintained in Christendom, such offenses would have not been able to happen. Of course, such errors aren’t mentioned because it doesn’t serve to denigrate the Western Church.

“Alright,” you may say, “but despite everything you’re saying, the Crusades are still a blot on the record of Western civilization. After all, even Pope John Paul II apologized for them. Why would he have done that if they weren’t regarded negatively today?”

There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he dided, the Washington Post reminded its readers “during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican’s associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo.”

A broad list, but John Paul II never apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the “Day of Pardon.” During his homily, he said, “We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians. For the violence some have used in the service of truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.” This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades. Anyway, given the true history of the Crusades, such an apology would not have been warranted.

The Crusaders do not deserve the opprobrium of the world, but the world’s gratitude.

 

[Teflon93]

Grace and Peace,

The Crusaders do not deserve the opprobrium of the world, but the world’s gratitude.

The way Montalban argues, even when we agree with him and history shows the Pope’s condemnation of the sack of Constantinople, makes me wonder if part of the trouble isn’t that in the Orthodox view a Muslim East is to be preferred to a Catholic one.

What say you, Montalban—would you prefer Syria, Jordan, Israel, etc to be Catholic or Muslim today, if those were your only choices?