Were the crusades a just war?

[oldcatholicguy]

1ke you say that the goal of the crusades was also to free the Christians from muslims. Why then, was our only goal Jerusalem? Were not Christians in Egypt also deserving freedom?

Second, you still didn’t explain the Albigensian crusade? How is that particular crusade just war?

Crusades did take place in what is now Egypt. As for Jerusalem being the primary goal for almost all the Crusades that took place in the ME, you need to review the importance of the city for Christians during the various time periods of the Crusades.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Seems more than a minor “quibble” to note that the main Islamic aggression that you mentioned to justify the crusade, the conquest of Jerusalem, had taken place in 638, more than 400 years ago. There was never any great love between Christians and Muslims, and there were always sporadic outbursts of violence as empires contested for more land and power. But it wasn’t as if there some sort of planned mass offensive against Christian Europe at the time of the first crusade. The main violence that you mentioned as the impetus behind the crusade wasn’t committed by the people who lived in the contested lands at the time, but by their great-great-great-great grandfathers.

My understanding is that, yes, the Muslim Arabs did take much of the Eastern Empire, but that by the time of the First Crusade, the Arabs were no longer in the driver’s seat in their own land except weakly in Egypt. They had been gradually conquered by Turks, initially Kwarazmian, then Seljuks.

The Arabs allowed fairly free movement of Christians to the Holy Land for pilgrimages, etc. The Seljuks didn’t, and abused Christians besides. That closure and abuse were the initial impetus to the Crusades.

One could argue that, but for the Seljuks, the Crusades would never have happened. But later Turkic conquerers were every bit as oppressive as the Seljuks, so the Crusades might have happened later anyway.

 

[Ridgerunner]

1ke you say that the goal of the crusades was also to free the Christians from muslims. Why then, was our only goal Jerusalem? Were not Christians in Egypt also deserving freedom?

Second, you still didn’t explain the Albigensian crusade? How is that particular crusade just war?

I’m no expert on the Alibigensian Heresy, but I do understand it was more than just a religious thing, and had some disruptive peculiarities besides. It wasn’t a unitary thing, either. Some segments believed in a final “sacrament” which I believe they called the “Consolimentum” or something like that. It was the total forgiveness of all sins if administered, but could only be received once. So, some people would, after the “sacrament” hurry death along for those who received it. Some segments of Albigensians or offshoots thereof, believed all wives should be held “in common” with all men, and the larger societies at the time had objections to that practice. It was also, at times and in places, separatist, politically. The kings of France initially tolerated the heresy, but then acted to crush it because they felt it would lead to secession of parts of France. And it was a very real threat, supported by some of the powerful nobles.

As with many of the struggles in that time, the religious aspect is not really separable from the political aspect.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

My understanding is that, yes, the Muslim Arabs did take much of the Eastern Empire, but that by the time of the First Crusade, the Arabs were no longer in the driver’s seat in their own land except weakly in Egypt. They had been gradually conquered by Turks, initially Kwarazmian, then Seljuks.

The Arabs allowed fairly free movement of Christians to the Holy Land for pilgrimages, etc. The Seljuks didn’t, and abused Christians besides. That closure and abuse were the initial impetus to the Crusades.

One could argue that, but for the Seljuks, the Crusades would never have happened. But later Turkic conquerers were every bit as oppressive as the Seljuks, so the Crusades might have happened later anyway.

Yea, at the time of the first crusades the Fatmid Arabs sided with the invading Franks over the people they considered their real enemies, the Seljuks. I believe they sent peace envoys and attempted to negotiate a power sharing arrangement of sorts before the fall of Antioch. It wasn’t as if Islam had a united front that was on the brink of sweeping across Europe.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yea, at the time of the first crusades the Fatmid Arabs sided with the invading Franks over the people they considered their real enemies, the Seljuks. I believe they sent peace envoys and attempted to negotiate a power sharing arrangement of sorts before the fall of Antioch. It wasn’t as if Islam had a united front that was on the brink of sweeping across Europe.

Not at that time, to my understanding. But it’s also true that threats to Europe came in waves with lulls in between. At the time of the First Crusade, the Empire was threatened, not by the Arab Muslims, but by the Turkic Seljuks. It wasn’t an imminent threat, but the Seljuks had recently taken a lot of the Empire’s territory, and it wasn’t looking very good for the Empire as a sort of chronic thing.

One could question whether the Franks would have initiated the First Crusade for the sake of the Empire, because the East/West relationship wasn’t all that good, before, during or after. But the Empire did regain a lot of its former territory thanks to the First Crusade. The Byzantines wanted Palestine back too, but the Frankish leaders ignored that part.

One of the huge ironies of all the invasions (and there were several) was that the Ottomans possibly saved Europe from Timur and Timur possibly saved Europe from the Ottomans.

Possibly the saddest irony of all is the evident belief of the Arab Muslim world that “Crusaders”, then and now were and are their primary enemies. In reality, their “caliphate” and all the dreams they have about it, was ruined by invaders from Central Asia, not from the West.

Interesting and ironic too is the fact that the biggest threat to the “caliphate” dream is now Iran, not the West. (another recurring theme) But I think the Sunni state leaders, not “caliphate” dreamers themselves, realize that Iran is the greatest existential threat to anything they want for the future. So, of course, do the Sunni Jihadis, which is why they’re pouring into Syria. The Jihadis, of course, want their “caliphate”, but the Sunni state leaders, who don’t, also realize Iran is the great threat, and fund the jihadis for now as a totally untrustworthy “mercenary army”. One remembers the story of the “mercenary” Mamluks employed by the Fatimids. That didn’t turn out too well.

Ironically, the Sunni Arabs might eventually bemoan the departure of the West from the Middle East just as many hated to see the Crusaders go. Many, of course, already do.
The “Franks” (some Arabs still call Westerners that) were and are the best resource the Arab Muslims had for defense against stronger neighbors. But like the Crusaders, we left the place to the slaughter that was inevitable upon our departure.

The Crusaders, of course, had no choice but to leave. We did have a choice.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

My understanding is that, yes, the Muslim Arabs did take much of the Eastern Empire, but that by the time of the First Crusade, the Arabs were no longer in the driver’s seat in their own land except weakly in Egypt. They had been gradually conquered by Turks, initially Kwarazmian, then Seljuks.

The Arabs allowed fairly free movement of Christians to the Holy Land for pilgrimages, etc. The Seljuks didn’t, and abused Christians besides. That closure and abuse were the initial impetus to the Crusades.

One could argue that, but for the Seljuks, the Crusades would never have happened. But later Turkic conquerers were every bit as oppressive as the Seljuks, so the Crusades might have happened later anyway.

There were crusades after the Seventh Crusade, see the Crusade of Varna (1444) and also the War of the Holy League (late 17th century) both against the Ottoman Turks.

Not at that time, to my understanding. But it’s also true that threats to Europe came in waves with lulls in between. At the time of the First Crusade, the Empire was threatened, not by the Arab Muslims, but by the Turkic Seljuks. It wasn’t an imminent threat, but the Seljuks had recently taken a lot of the Empire’s territory, and it wasn’t looking very good for the Empire as a sort of chronic thing.

One could question whether the Franks would have initiated the First Crusade for the sake of the Empire, because the East/West relationship wasn’t all that good, before, during or after. But the Empire did regain a lot of its former territory thanks to the First Crusade. The Byzantines wanted Palestine back too, but the Frankish leaders ignored that part.

One of the huge ironies of all the invasions (and there were several) was that the Ottomans possibly saved Europe from Timur and Timur possibly saved Europe from the Ottomans.
**
Possibly the saddest irony of all is the evident belief of the Arab Muslim world that “Crusaders”, then and now were and are their primary enemies. In reality, their “caliphate” and all the dreams they have about it, was ruined by invaders from Central Asia, not from the West.
**
Interesting and ironic too is the fact that the biggest threat to the “caliphate” dream is now Iran, not the West. (another recurring theme) But I think the Sunni state leaders, not “caliphate” dreamers themselves, realize that Iran is the greatest existential threat to anything they want for the future. So, of course, do the Sunni Jihadis, which is why they’re pouring into Syria. The Jihadis, of course, want their “caliphate”, but the Sunni state leaders, who don’t, also realize Iran is the great threat, and fund the jihadis for now as a totally untrustworthy “mercenary army”. One remembers the story of the “mercenary” Mamluks employed by the Fatimids. That didn’t turn out too well.

Ironically, the Sunni Arabs might eventually bemoan the departure of the West from the Middle East just as many hated to see the Crusaders go. Many, of course, already do.
The “Franks” (some Arabs still call Westerners that) were and are the best resource the Arab Muslims had for defense against stronger neighbors. But like the Crusaders, we left the place to the slaughter that was inevitable upon our departure.

The Crusaders, of course, had no choice but to leave. We did have a choice.

What’s even more ironic is that Arabs forgot about them and only “remembered” them as the French and the British used it to justify their ownership of the Middle East.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There were crusades after the Seventh Crusade, see the Crusade of Varna (1444) and also the War of the Holy League (late 17th century) both against the Ottoman Turks.

What’s even more ironic is that Arabs forgot about them and only “remembered” them as the French and the British used it to justify their ownership of the Middle East.

Brit and French rule was better than Ottoman rule, by a long way. And, in many cases, it was better than it is today.

Sometimes one is tempted to root for Turkish revanchism, which would certainly be well deserved by many. But that’s not nice, and besides, I don’t think the Turks would dare it now, with all the Kurds at their backs.

But one thing is for sure. The Turks could take over Iraq with relative ease if it weren’t for the Kurds both outside and inside Turkey. The geographical relationship of the two countries is sort of like the Shenandoah Valley was during much of the Civil War. Easy to attack from Turkey right into the heart of Iraq. Invade Turkey from Iraq and you’re uphill all the way and when you get to the top, you’re nowhere.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Their “goal” was not “to conquer Jerusalem.”

Firstly, their aim was to liberate the Holy Land and defend the innocent from unjust aggression and violence (i.e. the Byzantines and Christian pilgrims).

The Catholic West responded generously to a serious and lawful request for military relief from the Byzantine Empire against an unjust aggressor with, moreover, the noble hope of accomplishing a more perfect unity and reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Christian world. Unfortunately, a great many wicked and greedy people managed all too often to corrupt the otherwise lawful and noble mission and spirit of the first Crusades, even ultimately reversing and undoing the original aim altogether, arguably only making things worse in many regards, with repercussions for us down to this very day.

Be that as it may, the Crusades resulted in a lasting European military presence in the Mediterranean and the beginning of the reversing of the tides or fortunes of war such that modern Europe could emerge. Aggression coming from various and ambitious factions in the Islamic political world could and no doubt would have prevented modern Europe from emerging as trade and exploration would have been crippled and would never have had a favourable climate, so to speak, to take off from. Columbus could not have sailed if European ports and shipping were incessantly raided or simply under foreign control, rule or administration. Such freedom was the exclusive benefit of a permanent Crusader presence in the Mediterranean on one hand aided, as it were, from time to time by the special or full backing of various European Catholic powers whenever needed or necessary. Somewhat ironically modern Europe is deeply indebted to what is today Vatican City State specifically for its concentrated and exhaustive efforts to galvanize Catholic and Christian Western Europe into defending itself from foreign aggressors, aggressors who for a long time enjoyed many advantages and very really threatened the sovereignty of Western European powers, all too often distracted by comparatively petty distractions, disputes and bickering that wasted their resources.

It is highly unlikely that the United States, for example, would have ever emerged if it weren’t for Western Christendom’s crusader logic. Surely it would have at best been delayed, granting that for some reason the British Isles were left free from either Islamic powers or Viking ones and further managed to attain the technological development that historically was first achieved only by the greatest expense and efforts of far larger and richer Continental powers and monarchies.