M
mcliffor
Guest
Did the crusades match the Church’s definition of just war? If not, why did the Pope preach them?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
They started off just, to protect pilgrims to the Holy Land, push back Moslem invaders, and help the Eastern Churches. But they went horribly wrong by the actions of those participating in the Crusades. The call to action was just and probably saved Europe and the West, and they were a defensive action, but the actions carried out by people in the name of the Church was misguided and inhumane.
R
rtconstant
Guest
From a certain perspective I think they did. It gets muddy because so many things that happened in the crusades were truly cruel. However, the initial desire to help the eastern chrisitians was good (though admittedly this degenerated quickly). Also, to be honest Muslim Empire was a direct threat to not only the Byzantines but the west as well.
I think if you looked at it strictly from the perspective of the West verses the muslim empire then yes the first few crusade at least could be seen as “just”. If you add in the Byzantines then it looks much less so.
I think the Church’s intent was good but the realities of the crusades tarnished those ideas. Of course to be honest war tends to do that.
We all have a tendancy to want to fit the crusades into one box or another and the fact is that those were some of the most complex wars in the history of man. It’s even hard to see who if anyone actually “won”. The only thing that seems totally clear is that the Byzantines lost, and mores the pity.
I think if you looked at it strictly from the perspective of the West verses the muslim empire then yes the first few crusade at least could be seen as “just”. If you add in the Byzantines then it looks much less so.
I think the Church’s intent was good but the realities of the crusades tarnished those ideas. Of course to be honest war tends to do that.
We all have a tendancy to want to fit the crusades into one box or another and the fact is that those were some of the most complex wars in the history of man. It’s even hard to see who if anyone actually “won”. The only thing that seems totally clear is that the Byzantines lost, and mores the pity.
F
FightingFat
Guest
St. Michael is absolutely right- they began as a response to violence toward Christians pilgrims. It’s important to remember that Jerusalem was Christian at that point, suffering from Muslim expansionism.
It is difficult to address a query like “were the crusades just” because the term “The Crusades” encompasses such a lot!
It is difficult to address a query like “were the crusades just” because the term “The Crusades” encompasses such a lot!
A
Axion
Guest
The Crusades had two immediate causes. The first was the attacks by Muslims upon pilgrims going to Jerusalem, and destruction of the shrines there. The second, equally important was an appeal for help from the Eastern Christians who were suffering a renewed Islamic invasion by the Seljuk Turks. In 1095 Pope Urban the Second called for Christians to unite in a Crusade.
From Pope Urban II’s call at the Council of Clermont in 1095
Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. 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 most of you have heard, the Turks and 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 impurity, 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 destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
So were the Eastern Christians really in mortal Danger?
The answer is yes. A new wave of conquest had been launched by the Seljuk Turks, who would give their name to the land now called Turkey.
This is from a contemporary account of their attack on Christian Armenia in 1059, 30 years before the Crusades.
On Sunday 6th August the siege of Sebastea began, as did the slaughter; thousands of corpses littered the ground. What a dreadful scene. The bodies of highly renowned men were piled in a heap as if a forest of trees had been felled. and the ground was soaked with blood…
They ruthlessly massacred an immense number of people, carried off booty and took untold numbers of captives, men and women, young boys and girls, whom they sold into slavery… Fateful day! In a matter of minutes Sebastea and the surrounding plain were bathed in blood. The clear waters of the River Kizil Irmak which cuts through the city walls, suddenly flowed red.
In 1064 the Turks returned. He made his way towards Armenia and entered the country; the inhabitants were put to the sword and driven into slavery. The infidels were so numerous that they covered the plains and closed off al the escape routes. Then he invaded Georgia, bringing death and slavery wherever he went. … The Turks exterminated all the inhabitants, men, women, priests, monks and nobles; the young boys and girls were taken away captive into Persia.."
Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa.
I would say the Crusades were clearly a Just war in that they were basically defensive. A strike back against 600 years of Muslim aggression and conquest. Many modern historians have tried to turn this upside down and present the Crusades as blatant Christian aggression. That is false.
From Pope Urban II’s call at the Council of Clermont in 1095
Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. 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 most of you have heard, the Turks and 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 impurity, 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 destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
So were the Eastern Christians really in mortal Danger?
The answer is yes. A new wave of conquest had been launched by the Seljuk Turks, who would give their name to the land now called Turkey.
This is from a contemporary account of their attack on Christian Armenia in 1059, 30 years before the Crusades.
On Sunday 6th August the siege of Sebastea began, as did the slaughter; thousands of corpses littered the ground. What a dreadful scene. The bodies of highly renowned men were piled in a heap as if a forest of trees had been felled. and the ground was soaked with blood…
They ruthlessly massacred an immense number of people, carried off booty and took untold numbers of captives, men and women, young boys and girls, whom they sold into slavery… Fateful day! In a matter of minutes Sebastea and the surrounding plain were bathed in blood. The clear waters of the River Kizil Irmak which cuts through the city walls, suddenly flowed red.
In 1064 the Turks returned. He made his way towards Armenia and entered the country; the inhabitants were put to the sword and driven into slavery. The infidels were so numerous that they covered the plains and closed off al the escape routes. Then he invaded Georgia, bringing death and slavery wherever he went. … The Turks exterminated all the inhabitants, men, women, priests, monks and nobles; the young boys and girls were taken away captive into Persia.."
Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa.
I would say the Crusades were clearly a Just war in that they were basically defensive. A strike back against 600 years of Muslim aggression and conquest. Many modern historians have tried to turn this upside down and present the Crusades as blatant Christian aggression. That is false.
I
Integritus
Guest
Indeed.St. Michael is absolutely right- they began as a response to violence toward Christians pilgrims. It’s important to remember that Jerusalem was Christian at that point, suffering from Muslim expansionism.
Also, Palestine, Syria, all of Asia Minor, (present-day Turkey), much of North Africa and Spain, northern Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) including substantial Christians in Baghdad and vecinity; parts of western Arabia and Persia (though these in Arabia and Persia were mostly of the Nestorian and Monophysite creeds) - were all per majority Christian or had hotbeds of Christianity prior to the birth of Islam.
One by one (and quickly) the Christian civilization in these areas became controlled by Arab Islamic rulers, then Turkish/Mongol Islamic rulers.
Manzikert, eastern Asia Minor (AD 1071) - the Byzantine Christians fail in defending their city by losing a devastating battle to the invading Turks which gave them control of most of central and eastern Asia Minor. This is generally recognized as the “final straw” by western Christendom who saw themselves as next in line.
C
CollegeCatholic
Guest
As much as I respect the attempt to make history less slanted against the Church, the times labeled “Second and Third…” Crusades definately did not fullfill the requirements of Just War. As to who won? I thought it was pretty clear that the Moslems won considering they took control pretty much all of the ancient holy lands: Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jeruselum, etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.