Understanding the Crusades

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic03

Well-known member
Pax Christi:

Today, I was asked about the Church’s role/view in the Crusades. I will have to learn about this in a few months, from a secular perspective at school.

From what I understand:
  1. The Church does not have any official teaching on the Crusades.
  2. The general attitude is that the Crusades were very much justified and that the actions of popes and Church leaders during the Crusades were justified. They were simply to defend Christendom and secure the right of Christians in the Holy Land and other places.
  3. Yes, terrible, even disgusting atrocities were committed by crusaders. Nonetheless, such events were committed by fanatical lay crusaders who were not following the official instructions and thus were doing wrong in the eyes of God - the pope and Church leaders never themselves ordered such atrocities to be committed.
  4. In short, the Crusades were for a holy and just cause, and must be viewed in a way that takes into account the attitudes of the time. Bad things that happened during the Crusades were not sanctioned by the Church. Indeed, Pope Urban II, who ordered the first Crusade, was beatified in 1881.
This is basically what I said when explaining the Crusades to people. Is this the correct way to truthfully understand the Crusades, from our Catholic perspective?

Moreover, how am I to study the Crusades in a secular environment without criticising the Church?

God Bless, and thank you.
 
Last edited:
Just like any other time period (look at the events in the past 100 years), there was a lot of politics and nuance to what was happening in the world. The Crusades to a large extent were a defensive war/response against imperialist Islamic powers pushing into new territory or taking people in mass numbers for the slave market, but the Crusaders weren’t all a bunch of saints either and it was common in that time period for ransacking and pillaging to occur; although this wasn’t at all unique to the Crusades, it did happen during the Crusades.

It’s perfectly fine and good to be critical towards this kind of behavior, but don’t buy into the secular mythology or many misconceptions about the Crusades.
 
Last edited:
One very important point which is often missed concerning the Fourth Crusade, the one which sacked Constantinople: the Pope had already excommunicated the entire Crusader army as soon as he learned they had deviated from the planned route and from true purpose of the Crusade. So this atrocity was done in defiance of the Church.

The Crusades against the Moslems and Albigensians were certainly defensive as they were waged in country that had long been Christian until taken over by unchristian powers. The Baltic Crusades were different. The Wends and other pagan peoples were continually fighting Christendom and the crusades there were directed to force conversion. The Vatican of today would not have agreed to this.
 
Last edited:
catholic03 said:
how am I to study the Crusades in a secular environment without criticising the Church?
Click to expand...
Well, first off, there are many within the church (past and present) who are NOT above criticizing (St Robert Bellarmine, pray for us!!! 😄 ). But to your point, if you learn about the topic in any secular school (and possibly even some parochial ones) you’ll get a very lopsided “Christians = baaaaaaaad/ mohammedans = goooooood” narrative. The history of the Crusades is not at all cut and dry, nor is it even a singular event (there were Crusades against the mohammedan in the Holy Land of course, but also against the genocidal/nihilistic Albigensians in France (i.e. “white people”), as well as the barbarous and cannibalistic pagans of the Baltic region (i.e. more “white people”), so, it’s a lot more complicated than “white savage Europeans against brown peaceful Muslims”.

The interesting thing about the topic is there is quite a bit of source material that still exists in the form of written record, poetry, contemporary artistic rendition etc. As far as a good “step 1”, I would really recommend getting a hold of the series “The Crusades” from EWTN. It’s not a reenactment or anything, just a very scholarly look at cause and effect with a lot of good detail. There are of course MANY other sources and authors on this topic, but I would really give you a very strong caution, since like religion itself, the concept of the Crusades has often been subverted/bastardized by groups seeking to use it to further their own agenda or world view.

I hope this helps at least a little. Best of luck, et Deus Vult!!!
 
The prevailing view of the Crusades, which is broadly hostile to the Crusaders themselves and, by extension, to the papacy, derives mainly from Steven Runciman’s three-volume History of the Crusades, published in the 1950s. This review of a recent biography of Runciman provides important insights into his preferences, his sympathies, and his prejudices.

 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
The prevailing view of the Crusades, which is broadly hostile to the Crusaders themselves and, by extension, to the papacy, derives mainly from Steven Runciman’s three-volume History of the Crusades
Click to expand...
Interesting! Thanks for this! I’ve never heard of this author but will absolutely check it out. As you probably know, the negative perception of the Crusades is in fact as old as the Reformation; many protestants of the time self-identified with the Cathars and Waldensians, seeing them as fellow dissenting Christians persecuted by the Catholic Crusaders. One of the earliest critics of the Crusades in English was John Foxe in his work “THE ACTS AND MONUMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH” under the sections “History of the Turks”, in which he blames the idolatry and lack of faith of the “bishops of Rome” for the ultimate failure of the Crusaders. He goes into great detail on how demonic and cruel the turk (a catch-all for Kurds and other mohammedan ethnicities) is to Christians and in fact blames the Catholic church for the rise of the turk as a world power (this was written in the 1563 at their zenith). And although there were several other Reformation-era critics of the Crusades, I would argue the modern trend towards viewing them with a wistful Orientalism and rabid anti-clericalism comes from the age of Enlightenment, with the usual anti-Catholic subjects (i.e. Voltaire). And of course, while maybe not wishing to, the likes of Voltaire rely heavily on the Reformation protestant propaganda for “source material”.

Once again, thanks for the recommendation.
 
ISBN: 194166301X
“Glory of the Crusades” - Steve Weidenkopf

This would serve the purposes you ask with the exception maybe of how to not criticize the Church. The answer I’d say to that is, The Church Herself did nothing wrong, but some of her members certainly did, as you are clearly aware.

Also, if there were as many soldiers as there were back then with swords, proceeding towards us in this day and age with modern arms, a declaration of war would barely even need a congressional vote. Difference here is, non-religious soldiers vs attacking Muslims back then who had already conquered a large portion of the known East, by force.
 
catholic03 said:
The general attitude is that the Crusades were very much justified and that the actions of popes and Church leaders during the Crusades were justified. They were simply to defend Christendom and secure the right of Christians in the Holy Land and other places.
Click to expand...
The fact is, Muslim rulers denied access to European Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. This triggered the Crusades. After that, it gets murky.
 
I have found, in general, that most history written in the last 25 years or so, tend to give a much more balanced treatment of history in general. Historians have mostly cleaned up their acts and sincerely try to put biases aside (as best they can) and base their conclusions much more on the evidence than any desire to bash Christians or Muslims. YMMV
 
A few points about the crusades.

The event took place about a thousand years ago. It is not possible to apply today’s ethical or political standards and criteria to events of the distant past. Yes, the crusades were religiously motivated, but the standards and their interpretations were a reflection of those times.

Secondly, the crusades were inspired by the church but were certainly not managed by the church. Groups of knights from France and Germany were spearheading the movement, and according to historians, they had their personal objectives in mind when they established independant kingdoms in the East.

Thirdly, the history of the crusades was written mostly by non-catholic historians, people who were openly hostile to the church and who did their level best to present any church-related event in the worst possible light.

Bickering and competition among the various Christian groups who participated in the events, and those Eastern Christians already there make it difficult to justify the black and white picture, which is now being presented.

It is important to know that there were plenty of Muslim factions who supported some of the Christian groups. They also fought among themselves.

Instead of trying to defend the church in these matters, it may be better to just do an indepth study.
 
Exactly right. By coincidence I happen to have met two important authors on this subject; Runciman, who was a friend of my father’s, who had zero faith in any religion, and Jonathan (now Lord) Sumption, who is a practising Catholic.
 
As the Crusades began, in their infancy, the distinguishing between different religions was murky due to nationality and dress, Christians were killing Christians along with Jews.
 
Interesting! Does your personal knowledge of Runciman match what Tyerman says in that First Things review?
 
Dan_Defender said:
The fact is, Muslim rulers denied access to European Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. This triggered the Crusades. After that, it gets murky
Click to expand...
Apologies, but that is not “the fact.” Islam was sweeping across Christian lands by the sword, approaching Constantinople, and the emperor there requested help from the Pope to defend against it there. It was headed towards Rome geographically as well.

You’re definitely correct that Muslims were blocking pilgrimages, but wasn’t the triggering factor. There were many factors, but the key one was the request for help from Pope (Urban #?), who called for help at Clermont.

And as another poster says, that world was very very different than ours today. People of that time were very religious and committed to the Faith, as well as the Church.

Also, many non-Catholics who accuse crusaders of having taken the Crusades up of doing so for personal gain, fail to understand that many wealthy people sold all they had to afford going on the Crusades, and the majority of them did not return home.

The “fact” is, the Crusades were called to stop muslim aggression against Christian lands.
 
The subject of the Crusades is much more complex than can be summed up in neat little bullet points. For instance I’m not sure what your 1. means. The Pope called for the 1st Crusade for instance. But I don’t know if that counts as an “official teaching”

The general attitude of polemicists is that the Crusades were justified. But even talking about “the Crusades” is an oversimplification. The People’s Crusade was not supported by Church or State. Many crusades brutalized the Jewish populations in Europe. Constantinople was sacked. Oaths to Emperor Alexius were broken… Certainly none of this was justified. The excuse of defending the Holy Land is a canard - the Levant was lost to the Christians 500 years before the First Crusade and pilgrimage was by and large supported by the local rulers as it brought wealth to the region. Heck, the Albigensian Crusade was in Europe against Christians.

3 is by and large true. Church leaders literally fought to defend Jewish populations from maruading Crusaders, for instance. Monastic knights eventually became a thing with Church approval though so… Again it’s complicated.

I think an important thing to talk about too is that judging actions “in their time” is a form of relativism. The right or wrong of the acts don’t change. The First Crusade in particular proved itself to be an exercise in Frankish nation building. For the Byzantine, they were supposed to be an allied reconquest of territory for the Eastern Empire. I’m sure the average knight or footsolider has honest religious defensive ideals. But we have the evidence that shows it was more complicated.
 
Last edited:
It can be helpful to realize that at the time of the Crusades, the Levant was every bit as feudal as was Europe. And so, different Crusader lords took over different segments of the Levant and the ordinary people paid taxes to the 'castle" just as before and didn’t care. Different Muslim feudal lords fought against or with different Crusader lords.

Ultimately, the Arab Caliphate was conquered from within by the Mamluk Turks, then from without by the Mongols, Timur and the Ottomans in their turns, conquests from which it never recovered. The Crusaders actually offered to fight the Mongols with the Arabs, but the Mamluks turned them down and conquered the Crusader states. The Franks returned to Europe and some islands and that was that.
 
I don’t think we disagree. Like you said, there was more than one factor that led to the Crusades.
 
Pope Urban (#?) was asked for help by the Emperor Alexius (#?) from Constantinople, gave a sermon and called 1st Crusade at Clermont. Nope, not an “official teaching,” an historical fact.

Talking about “the Crusades” being oversimplified is, I suppose, partly correct. However, in modern America, there has been so very much revisionist history written on the topic that instead of a discussion, there is needed a huge correction - Christians did not just up and start crusading to conquer the muslims or their lands. It was a defensive action, taken up as a religious duty upon the request of a pope and, though plenty of abuses happened, they were not called for by the Pope or the Church, they were committed by those who were at variance, in general, from Church Teaching.
In any case, the perception exists that “Christian Crusades = Bad” and anyone who disagrees is an Islamaphobic person, That equation is clearly false, and itself an infinitely ridiculous oversimplification that sadly exists in American society.
 
I think you’re reacting a little defensively. I know of no actual historians in “modern America” who seriously consider The Crusades the way you describe it. I know plenty of ignorant facebook warriors who talk like that but they clearly don’t know what they’re talking about. The Crusades as a… I guess call it a movement (?) had different goals from differing points of view.

To the Byzantines, it was an operation of reconquest. The Empire had been slowly losing territory since Justinian pushed the boundaries to the furthermost points. Alexios I Komnenos was fighting hard against the Seljuqs who had been pushing up from the Levant and inward along Anatolia itself. It wasn’t just the Empire that was threatened, but the Byzantine “homeland” itself. Emperor Alexios’ goals were pretty clear. He asked Crusaders who came through Constantinople to swear oaths that land taken would be returned to the Empire. In terms of geopolitics, it makes sense to call on possible allies for help. But it was pretty clear the Empire had its sights on the Levant and hopefully Egypt. The breadbasket that is the Nine was crucial to the Empire when it was large. In terms of the Empire fighting against another, there is definitely a defensive aspect to what was being asked.

To the Westerners, the Crusades were blatantly draped with the Cross and framed as a holy war. not just to defend Constantinople but sold as reclaiming the Holy Land from the Infidel. There was definitely was religious pressure from Rome (whether or not you want to call it teaching, I’m not going to argue over) Indulgences were given to Crusaders to encourage participation. It was ordered and partially organized by the Pope. Things did go off the tracks and that isn’t the Church’s direct fault sure. But I do not doubt at all the religious zeal of the actual footsoldiers. The Pope said God Wills It, and they took that as a given.

There’s some misconception about the nobles who actually lead the Crusades. I’ve heard arguments that it was non-heirs striking off to go carve up their own kingdoms in the Levant. And that’s not true really. I think that comes from a Marxist reading of the accounts. Many of the nobles who went WERE rulers and heirs. I don’t think many, if any, expected the Crusades to be wars to generate wealth. They DID carve up the Levant into Crusader States but I think that’s more due to the mindset of the medieval warrior. You conquest for land, that’s how it works. Incidentally they also broke the oaths that most of them swore to Alexios.
(1/2)
 
I think the truth of the matter is more in the middle. We’re talking about medieval geopolitics. That means war, and conquest. Everyone was doing it. Everywhere. As a historian and history teacher, I interpret the Crusades after reading the documents and evidence as a political entity (the Empire) asking for assistance against a common foe (the Turks) from allies who took advantage of the situation once they got there. I don’t or have never blamed the Church as an institution for it. The medieval Church was a political entity as well, that’s just… a fact.

But demonizing or praising the Crusades is wrong morally and factually. There has been nearly 1000 years of historical revisionism trying to paint the Crusades as lily-white endeavors. THAT is what people bristle at, I think. The Crusades weren’t defensive like they were sold. The Levant had been in Muslim control for centuries with no problems. The local Christian population was better treated there than non-Christians were in Europe. Pilgrims weren’t harassed as a rule. Local Muslim rulers encouraged pilgrimage because it increased trade. The Crusaders did terrible things - things that shouldn’t be overlooked. Things they did while waving the Cross and using it to justify their actions. But it wasn’t just Christian money and land grubbing either. The Crusaders, I am very sure, believed in the right of their cause. Even if they got out of control.

As I said. It’s complicated. The Albigensian Crusades and the Northern Crusades are a whole other kettle of fish.

(2/2)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top