View of the Crusades

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loving_disciple
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James82 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your aim at balance, but the deposition of Eastern bishops in favor of Latin ones and the utter disrespect towards Our Churches can’t be interpreted in any other way than as an affront and offense. How can one have a friendly view towards the Crusaders when all of this was going on?
 
tafan said:
Seriously? Wow, considering (just off the top of my head) the following were all driven by the Roman Catholics

The Battle of Tours
The 780 Year Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula
the 1061-1091 reconquest of Sicily by the Normans
the Siege of Vienna
the Battle of Vienna
The Battle of Lepanto

I find that view of history very, very strange
Click to expand...
What is strange is that the only battles which one could possibly claim to be driven primarily by faith (Rhodes and Malta) instead of secular concerns (see all the ones you’ve listed) aren’t on your list at all. This idea of a broad united Christian defense against Islamic attacks isn’t historical. The reconquest of Iberia wasn’t a European thing, it was an Iberian thing (hence no huge armies from France or the HRE rolling in to help the various Iberian kingdoms against the Muslims). The Conquest of Sicily by the Normans (gotta love converted Vikings) wasn’t a pan-Christian conquest. Nor were the various battles for Vienna.

Frankly, your entire position seems to either be ignorant of or willfully ignoring the fact that the Ottomans not only had friendly relations with various Christian kingdoms, but had military alliances with some of them against other Christian kingdoms. The only power during that time period which had a consistent policy toward the various Muslim kingdoms and empires were the Hospitallers (aka Knights of Rhodes, Knights of Malta). Heck, they almost lost the Battle of Malta because the big Christian powers either didn’t care enough to send troops or were more worried about their relations with the Ottomans.
 
Misplaced_Book said:
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.
Click to expand...
MB-

I understand that you are sensitive about the sacking of Constantinople. However, could you explain the Massacre of the Latins for the benefit of the Catholics who are following this thread?

Thanks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
 
Kielbasi said:
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.
Click to expand...
The wars between the Ottomans and their subjects in the Balkans were about ethnic nationalism and independence for the Greeks, Serbs, Croatians, Romanians, Bulgarians, ect. not religion. And the spree of ethnic cleansing in Thrace following WW1 was actual initiated when Greek soldiers moved into the territory the allies had striped the Ottomans from and massacred whole Turkish towns. When the Turks counter-attacked and won their short war they returned the favor on the areas Greek population.

and Americas war with Tripoli was over piracy on the high seas, again, not a religious conflict.

Just because a mostly Muslim nation wars with a mostly Christian nation dosnt make it a religious conflict. The Ottomans invaded Europe to extend the rule of the Sultan, spreading Islam was a secondary concern.
 
Timothysis said:
Then you are wrong on all accounts.
Click to expand...
On all accounts? I am wrong that the Muslims attacked Europe up to the late 17th century? I am wrong that those attacks ended at that time. I am wrong that the Crusades occurred in the midst of that aggression?
 
tafan said:
On all accounts? I am wrong that the Muslims attacked Europe up to the late 17th century? I am wrong that those attacks ended at that time. I am wrong that the Crusades occurred in the midst of that aggression?
Click to expand...
You talk about them like a unified group of people, they were various empires, sultanates, and Khanates. Also, the Ottomans fought wars in Europe right up until WW1, why is the 16th century the end of it?

The various Muslim invasions of Europe were not to convert Europe to Islam but to gain wealth, land, and power. Just as the Crusades were realy about uniting Europe under the Papal banner.
 
Skadi said:
You talk about them like a unified group of people, they were various empires, sultanates, and Khanates. Also, the Ottomans fought wars in Europe right up until WW1, why is the 16th century the end of it?

The various Muslim invasions of Europe were not to convert Europe to Islam but to gain wealth, land, and power.** Just as the Crusades were realy about uniting Europe under the Papal banner**.
Click to expand...
Said the Germanic Pagan… 😉

Just wondering what sources you are using for such a blanket statement? Can you list those books please.
 
James82 said:
Said the Germanic Pagan… 😉

Just wondering what sources you are using for such a blanket statement? Can you list those books please.
Click to expand...
Haha, says the history major 😛

“The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading” Is a good one.

At the time of the first Crusade Europe’s political landscape had changed significantly. The pagan Saxons, Vikings, and Hungarians had been Christianized, atleast nominally, and the Papacy had become embroiled in a power struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor that would last for centuries, the Investiture Controversy. After Urban II successfully encouraged Christians in Spain to reclaim the city of Tarragona he realized his ability to rally the Christian world to him. With large numbers of unemployed knights and men at arms in Europe and a plea for help from the Byzantine Emperor, Urban II called for a crusade in hopes of Uniting Europe in a common cause and establishing his primacy over the Holy Roman Emperor.
 
tafan said:
On all accounts? I am wrong that the Muslims attacked Europe up to the late 17th century? I am wrong that those attacks ended at that time. I am wrong that the Crusades occurred in the midst of that aggression?
Click to expand...
Skadi said:
You talk about them like a unified group of people, they were various empires, sultanates, and Khanates. Also, the Ottomans fought wars in Europe right up until WW1, why is the 16th century the end of it?

The various Muslim invasions of Europe were not to convert Europe to Islam but to gain wealth, land, and power. Just as the Crusades were realy about uniting Europe under the Papal banner.
Click to expand...
What he said. 🙂
 
Skadi said:
You talk about them like a unified group of people, they were various empires, sultanates, and Khanates. Also, the Ottomans fought wars in Europe right up until WW1, why is the 16th century the end of it?

The various Muslim invasions of Europe were not to convert Europe to Islam but to gain wealth, land, and power. Just as the Crusades were realy about uniting Europe under the Papal banner.
Click to expand...
I have specifically referred to it as a 1000 long year between two civilizations. I realize that the political entities changed, and there was not really the concept of a nation-state as we know it today until the 15th century or so.
All major aggression of the Ottoman Empire against Europe ended with the defeat at Vienna in 1683. Islam was never a threat against Europe again after that. Yes there was a war with Russia which ended in the beginning of the 18th century, and I believe the Ottoman’s gained control of Serbia as a result, so one could use that as an ending point. But there was no attack into Europe, I believe the gain of Serbia came about as part of the peace treaty negotiations. Never the less, it is only a 30 year difference.

As to the motivation, gaining wealth, land, and power was also part of it (isn’t it always). But the primary justification used by the various Islamic armies attacking Europe was always the same: the spread of the Muslim faith.

No, the Crusades were never about uniting Europe under a Papal banner. The Popes never sought political control over all of Europe: never.
 
Randy_Carson said:
MB-

I understand that you are sensitive about the sacking of Constantinople. However, could you explain the Massacre of the Latins for the benefit of the Catholics who are following this thread?

Thanks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
Click to expand...
What is there to explain? A senseless act of barbarism that those involved are answering for before Our Lord.

Did you expect me to defend it or try and whitewash it? No.

Note I left out the Sacking of Constantinople in my last post. I am well aware of the Massacre, and knew it would inevitably be brought up. My main point is the utter disrespect towards the Eastern Church before those two events occurred. The deposition of Our Bishops, the taking of the Empire’s territory in the name of their Latin kings. putting those two events aside (which are merely the bloody logical result of all of this mess). How are we in the East supposed to look favorably upon the Crusaders when the 3 Crusades prior were at our expense and to our detriment?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...
The Church is full of Sinners, and we have not always conducted ourselves well either.

However, you have not addressed my point. The actions of Western Europe in Crusades 1-3 were not those of a friend or ally. If anything, the Latin Kingdoms took advantage of the Eastern Empire’s distress to further their own power. The Latin Church saw it as an opportunity to further it’s interests against Constantinople.

How are we supposed to view this in a friendly light?
 
RPRPsych said:
Take me with a pinch of salt, because I’m not a great historian (I write historical fiction, but that’s a different story… :D), but:
  1. The wars themselves were just, and based on defensive principles. They were not wars of conquest.
  2. They must be judged against the culture (including rules of engagement) of their time. The Pope didn’t send drones into Constantinople. 😃
  3. Excesses were certainly committed by individual soldiers, or even groups of them. None of these were sanctioned or approved of by the Church.
  4. In the end, they didn’t achieve all of their goals.
They’re certainly not the atrocity story that some revisionists would have us believe. 😉
Click to expand...
these are just a few of the reasons why i believe personally that perhaps only one of the

many crusades were just wars. many of the crusaders made a vow with God to protect the

innocent which sadly:confused: not all of the warriors did.:mad:😦

God bless
 
dronald said:
As a Catholic, how does one justify the fourth Crusade?
Click to expand...
One does not have to justify it? It had a legitimate cause, as preached by the Pope, but was soon devolved into a complete disaster. Why would Catholics have to justify something which consisted of actions specifically forbidden them by the Pope Innocent III who preached the crusade? Why would a Catholic have to justify something that the Pope reacted to with excommunications of all involved?

Pope Innocent III’s subsequent actions notwithstanding, there is no reason for a Catholic to justify the 4th crusade.
 
tafan said:
One does not have to justify it? It had a legitimate cause, as preached by the Pope, but was soon devolved into a complete disaster. Why would Catholics have to justify something which consisted of actions specifically forbidden them by the Pope Innocent III who preached the crusade? Why would a Catholic have to justify something that the Pope reacted to with excommunications of all involved?

Pope Innocent III’s subsequent actions notwithstanding, there is no reason for a Catholic to justify the 4th crusade.
Click to expand...
What was the legitimate cause?
 
dronald said:
What was the legitimate cause?
Click to expand...
The legitimate cause was to attack the Muslims in the Holy Land, there by move the point of conflict onto the aggressor’s soil as opposed to one’s own. To regain the Holy Land for Christendom was also a legitimate cause.

But that is not what the crusaders actually did, or even attempted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top