View of the Crusades

[tafan]

I have read. Islam waged a 1000 year war agsinst Christendom with the explicit intent of destroying it. The Crusades were part if that war. As in any war, individuals may have motives of glory, gold, or power; think of MacArthur (power)or Patton(glory) in WWII. But the crusades themselves were an attempt to fight the Muslims on foreign ground as opposed to continually defending agsinst aggressive attacks into Europe.

 

[Timothysis]

I have read. Islam waged a 1000 year war agsinst Christendom with the explicit intent of destroying it. The Crusades were part if that war. As in any war, individuals may have motives of glory, gold, or power; think of MacArthur (power)or Patton(glory) in WWII. But the crusades themselves were an attempt to fight the Muslims on foreign ground as opposed to continually defending agsinst aggressive attacks into Europe.

Islam was only 300 years old when the crusades began, so how could it have been a “1000 year war against Christendom?”

Islam was confined to the Levant (in the middle east, at least), colliding with the Byzantines in Anatolia. So, how was this a threat against countries such as France, England and the Holy Roman Empire? Also, the crusades were an effect of the emperor in Constantinople requesting a contingency of knights and footmen to aid imperial troops; the last thing the emperor expected was entire armies (and it is interesting that when those armies arrived at the gates of Constantinople they were NOT let in for fear that they were there to conquer it).

When Tancred the Norman burst upon the temple mount during the first crusade, he and his men smashed their way in the Dome of the Rock and stripped it of "more than forty silver candelabra, each of them weighing 3600 drams, and a great silver lamp weighing forty-four Syrian pounds, as well as a hundred and fifty smaller silver candelara and more than twenty gold ones, and a great deal more booty." The Moslems fled into the other great structure on the Mount, the al-Aqsa Mosque. There they surrendered, promising a great ransom for their lives and accepting Tancred’s banner as the symbol of his protection. Before the sun set, Tancred’s flag, hoisted by Moslems, was flying over the most sacred site in Jerusalem. The following morning the Crusaders re-entered the al-Aqsa Mosque and slaughtered every Moslem sheltering there.

Does that fit your idea of “just war?” Was this done for the glory of God?

 

[vames]

Or maybe the plundering of churches, including Hagia Sophia, and destroying the life and property of fellow Christians was also done for the glory of God?
historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_20.html

 

[Timothysis]

Very good point.

 

[Kielbasi]

The Crusades were a series of wars against muslim aggression, but the powers of Western Europe were only marginally affected by muslims in the Holy Land. If the Crusades were strictly about muslim aggression, it would have seemed more effective to deploy the forces in Spain instead of Jerusalem.

They probably wouldn’t have been fought if the wars against the Vikings hadn’t concluded with those folks successfully converted to Catholicism. The end of the Viking raids in the 11th Century left behind a lot of military power that was otherwise idle.

Similarly, the Crusades ended when a new threat to Europe from the Mongols came down from the far east.

 

[tafan]

Islam was only 300 years old when the crusades began, so how could it have been a “1000 year war against Christendom?”

Islam was confined to the Levant (in the middle east, at least), colliding with the Byzantines in Anatolia. So, how was this a threat against countries such as France, England and the Holy Roman Empire? Also, the crusades were an effect of the emperor in Constantinople requesting a contingency of knights and footmen to aid imperial troops; the last thing the emperor expected was entire armies (and it is interesting that when those armies arrived at the gates of Constantinople they were NOT let in for fear that they were there to conquer it).

When Tancred the Norman burst upon the temple mount during the first crusade, he and his men smashed their way in the Dome of the Rock and stripped it of "more than forty silver candelabra, each of them weighing 3600 drams, and a great silver lamp weighing forty-four Syrian pounds, as well as a hundred and fifty smaller silver candelara and more than twenty gold ones, and a great deal more booty." The Moslems fled into the other great structure on the Mount, the al-Aqsa Mosque. There they surrendered, promising a great ransom for their lives and accepting Tancred’s banner as the symbol of his protection. Before the sun set, Tancred’s flag, hoisted by Moslems, was flying over the most sacred site in Jerusalem. The following morning the Crusaders re-entered the al-Aqsa Mosque and slaughtered every Moslem sheltering there.

Does that fit your idea of “just war?” Was this done for the glory of God?

If you take the conquest of the middle east and North Africa as the start and the Battle of Vienna as the end, it is roughly 1000 years. The Crusades occurred roughly in the middle. But make no mistake, that 1000 years was one big war between civilizations, with the goal of the Muslims to wipe out Christendom.
How was it a threat against France, go look at a map and see where Tours is, or where Vienna is? For that matter, Rome is in the south of Italy. It is impossible to see how the fall of Rome, would not have been a threat to all of Christendom, and the Muslims were attacking the south of Italy quite often and for a while had conquered Sicily.

Now, my idea of a “just war”, like the Church is a justification of the cause. The morality of the means of war is a different matter. Both are important, but when the Church teaches us of Just War it is concerning if one has a just cause. Yes, I believe the crusades, as part of this larger war between civilizations, was a just cause.

I do not argue that the Crusaders did not commit moral atrocities while fighting the war, just as I would not argue that the soldiers at the end of World War II who hung SS members immediately upon their surrender were justified, or that the bombing of Dresden was justified. But one does not condemn the allies for fighting WWII because at times armies or members of the Allies committed immoral acts.

 

[Railsplitter]

I have read. Islam waged a 1000 year war agsinst Christendom with the explicit intent of destroying it. The Crusades were part if that war. As in any war, individuals may have motives of glory, gold, or power; think of MacArthur (power)or Patton(glory) in WWII. But the crusades themselves were an attempt to fight the Muslims on foreign ground as opposed to continually defending agsinst aggressive attacks into Europe.

I agree. Just like we call it the thousand year Reich even though it only lasted twelve. Of course its now a 1400+ year war at present. The Islamic world believes it is at war with us (the West) and it does not matter what we believe.

 

[tafan]

I agree. Just like we call it the thousand year Reich even though it only lasted twelve. Of course its now a 1400+ year war at present. The Islamic world believes it is at war with us (the West) and it does not matter what we believe.

I would say the war between the Islamic World and Christendom ended in the lat 17th century. It is a stretch to say the conflicts today are part of that war. A big stretch.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

A question for po18guy and others:

which reading material would you suggest for this topic?

Thanks.

 

[Kielbasi]

I would say the war between the Islamic World and Christendom ended in the lat 17th century. It is a stretch to say the conflicts today are part of that war. A big stretch.

How do you figger?

The Ottoman Turks battled against Greek Christians throughout the 19th Century, and muslim expansion in Africa has been unabated since the middle ages. In addition, America did war with Tripoli at the beginning of the 19th Century, the war may have entered a different phase after Vienna but it didn’t end it.

Unless you define “Christendom” as just the traditional Christian powers of western Europe, I don’t think your analysis holds up.

 

[Timothysis]

How do you figger?

The Ottoman Turks battled against Greek Christians throughout the 19th Century, and muslim expansion in Africa has been unabated since the middle ages. In addition, America did war with Tripoli at the beginning of the 19th Century, the war may have entered a different phase after Vienna but it didn’t end it.

Unless you define “Christendom” as just the traditional Christian powers of western Europe, I don’t think your analysis holds up.

You are trying to say that these conflicts were based on “crusade,” when they were really just regular political territorial expansion. The same thing was going on in Europe between Christians nations.

 

[Timothysis]

If the Crusades were strictly about muslim aggression, it would have seemed more effective to deploy the forces in Spain instead of Jerusalem.

Excellent point. The point of the crusades was to retake Jerusalem and ultimately create a Latin kingdom in the Levant, not to check muslim aggression. The crusades were Europe’s first attempts at oversea colonies.

 

[Timothysis]

If you take the conquest of the middle east and North Africa as the start and the Battle of Vienna as the end, it is roughly 1000 years. The Crusades occurred roughly in the middle. But make no mistake, that 1000 years was one big war between civilizations, with the goal of the Muslims to wipe out Christendom.

I know of no serious scholar or historian who uses the siege of Vienna as a bookend to the crusades. The fourth crusade in 1204 is generally recognized to be the last of the real attempts to recover the Holy Land (boy, that didn’t work out too well, did it?). Some include the so called Children’s Crusade in 1212 in the list but that’s it.

The problem with the muslim empires (much like the Roman empire) was that they were dependent upon conquest to keep the treasury full since they did not produce articles worthy of trade to support a robust economy. The Ottoman Empire (again, like the Roman Empire) crumbled because once they reached the end of their boundaries, there was nothing left to supply them economically. They rotted from within. While Islam may be hostile to religions other than itself, the goal of the Muslim conquerors was primarily money and loot, just like the Crusaders who set off in 1098.

 

[Timothysis]

I would say the war between the Islamic World and Christendom ended in the lat 17th century. It is a stretch to say the conflicts today are part of that war. A big stretch.

True. The conflicts of today with Islam go back to the 19th century and they are political in nature.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Or maybe the plundering of churches, including Hagia Sophia, and destroying the life and property of fellow Christians was also done for the glory of God?
historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/fourth-crusade-and-sack-constantinople
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_20.html

Yes. We have a VERY different point of view on the Crusades.

The Eastern Empire held off the Muslims for a long time, but they started making gains. So, we needed help. Naturally, we asked for it from our fellow Christians.

However, when the Latin armies arrived, it quickly became apparent what they were really after. Deposing the legitimate Patriarchs of the various Apostolic Sees and installing Latin ones in their place is just one example of this “friendship.”

The sacking of Constantinople and attempted conquest of the Eastern Empire just sealed it all. So many of Our Relics were stolen (St. John Chrysostom’s relics and the Shroud of Turin just two examples).

The Crusades were not defensive…at all.

 

[tafan]

I know of no serious scholar or historian who uses the siege of Vienna as a bookend to the crusades. The fourth crusade in 1204 is generally recognized to be the last of the real attempts to recover the Holy Land (boy, that didn’t work out too well, did it?). Some include the so called Children’s Crusade in 1212 in the list but that’s it.

The problem with the muslim empires (much like the Roman empire) was that they were dependent upon conquest to keep the treasury full since they did not produce articles worthy of trade to support a robust economy. The Ottoman Empire (again, like the Roman Empire) crumbled because once they reached the end of their boundaries, there was nothing left to supply them economically. They rotted from within. While Islam may be hostile to religions other than itself, the goal of the Muslim conquerors was primarily money and loot, just like the Crusaders who set off in 1098.

You should at least be willing to read what others write. I did not say the Battle of Vienna was the end of the crusades. I said it was the end if the 1000 year war of Muslim aggression against Europe. The crusades were part of that war.

 

[Timothysis]

You should at least be willing to read what others write. I did not say the Battle of Vienna was the end of the crusades. I said it was the end if the 1000 year war of Muslim aggression against Europe. The crusades were part of that war.

Then you are wrong on all accounts.

 

[Caitliceach]

Regrettable, but by no means as atrocious as people would have you believe.
Additionally, western Europe benefited enormously, both in terms of wealth and knowledge, so we must bear that in mind before trying to paint the Crusades with the same brush as the imperialism that followed it.

 

[James82]

Yes. We have a VERY different point of view on the Crusades.

The Eastern Empire held off the Muslims for a long time, but they started making gains. So, we needed help. Naturally, we asked for it from our fellow Christians.

However, when the Latin armies arrived, it quickly became apparent what they were really after. Deposing the legitimate Patriarchs of the various Apostolic Sees and installing Latin ones in their place is just one example of this “friendship.”

The sacking of Constantinople and attempted conquest of the Eastern Empire just sealed it all. So many of Our Relics were stolen (St. John Chrysostom’s relics and the Shroud of Turin just two examples).

The Crusades were not defensive…at all.

As one Christian to another and with much reverence to Eastern Orthodoxy for it’s fortitude in the face of one crisis after another continuing up to the present day (Former Yugoslavia) I say this with caution: your analysis is only half the story.

There was an absolute sea of skulduggery involving Venetian merchants, Pope Innocent III, Hungary, the Bulgarian Empire and large host of hapless, exhausted, starving and fed up French Crusaders.

While bloodshed of any kind (including Just War) is regrettable to say the least, this area of history seems to be one of the most polluted and distorted by the world.

Dialectically seen from a Christian worldview (for me at least) this probably means that a lot of unjust scholasticism has been wrought upon the Crusaders. In fact it is manifestly evident that it has.

For a long time Runcimans’ 3 part series was seen as the ‘definitive’ work on the Crusades. However, in the last decade or so, many works have come about with an eye for the Truth, and have withheld the accusatory and bias spirit of Runciman.

Now does this mean everything the Crusaders did was divine providence? No, clearly.

If you would like a list of books to read on the subject I would be willing to help you. I only offer to help because there is a veritable sea of bs available as well.

Finally, I should add, that if that same spirit of Truth weighed it’s scales and found Latin Christendom vastly wanting (at the time) I should be the first to acknowledge it.

 

[Skadi]

The goal was the conquest of Christendom. Without the Crusades we’d all be speaking Arabic.

Thats not necessarily true, Firstly because the fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, the fortress city that stood between the Muslims and Europe for centuries. Also, The Crusades created greater political unity among Muslims. It is not to the crusaders but to the Austrians that Europe owes its debt for its defense from the Ottomans. And It would be Turkish not Arabic