What’s your take on the First Crusade?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salibi

Guest
Do you think they were necessary?

Do you think they were holy?

Opinions on the matter of course vary. I’ve read everything from books and articles claiming Pope Urban II was ravenous for European domination of the Levant to others painting him as a hero and the Crusades as a civilizing, necessary force. It is worth noting here that the Muslim Empire (if memory serves me correctly, specifically the Fatimid Caliphate- someone correct me if I’m wrong, as I’m not sure) was a thriving civilization, very tolerant of non-Muslim groups, except for brief intervals of persecution that were unremarkable and rather common during the Middle Ages. (Indeed, such episodes of periodic persecution were more common in Christian Europe). So the Muslims weren’t exactly as barbaric as Christian Europeans made them out.

It’s also worth noting the Pope Urban II is a canonized saint.

I’m interested in hearing your opinions on the subject of the morality and the necessity of the Crusades, and in discussing it further.

Peace, and civil discussing!
 
Last edited:
I don’t have the expertise to contribute much, but some years ago I listened to several lectures by SLU professor Thomas Madden on the Crusades. It was fascinating stuff! Prior to listening to those lectures, I had no idea about the historical complexities of the Crusades. He definitely opened my eyes to appreciating that the Crusades are not so easily something that the church must be completely ashamed of. The historical context was incredibly complex–well beyond what most of us non-historians think. Prior to listening to those lectures, I think I would have just granted the atheist’s point that there was nothing worthwhile or good in the Crusades. I definitely can’t believe that anymore. My 1.5 cents worth…
 
I’d recommend Thomas Asbridge’s “The Crusades” to anyone looking for a thorough history of the period, if you’re interested in learning more.
 
Last edited:
My very short version is that the Crusades were a good idea, but very badly executed.

D
 
The crusades were Holy and just, regardless of the personal sins of the crusaders themselves.
 
The problem is that the “Crusades” refers to many different wars that took place for different reasons with different groups across many centuries. It’s hard to have just one “take” on them.
 
Let’s simplify it to the First Crusade, since I referenced Pope Urban II in my OP. I’ll rectify it up there.
 
Last edited:
Steven Runciman’s three-volume history of the Crusades, first published in the 1950s, remained for many years a dominating influence on popular perceptions of what was right and wrong about them. I never managed to read more than the first twenty pages or so of Volume 1, so I have no personal opinion of the book. However, when a biography of Runciman appeared a couple of years ago, First Things carried this long, carefully written review. The first half of the review is mainly about Runciman himself and his book, while the second half – which I find more interesting – analyzes all the many views of the Crusades that have found favor at different times and in different places.

 
Salibi said:
Do you think they were necessary?

Do you think they were holy ?
Click to expand...
No and no. As at least the last three Popes have made clear, the use of force and war in the name of Christianity is wrong and a denial of the basic tenets of the faith.
 
Salibi said:
Do you think they were necessary?

Do you think they were holy ?
Click to expand...
Were they necessary? Depends on your point of view I guess. The Crusades were initiated when the Byzantine Emperor requested military aid from Western Europe against the Muslims who were advancing upon the Byzantine Empire through military conquest. From the standpoint of the Byzantine Empire, it certainly was necessary. Western Europeans had pretty good reason to get involved. Only about 300 years prior Muslim armies invaded Spain, Portugal, and France and were only stopped in a desperate battle by Charles Martel. At the time, this memory was still pretty fresh to Western Europeans, as much of Spain and Portugal were still under Muslim control. That being said, your second question of whether the war was holy? I would say probably not. The first crusade quickly went off the rails in both scope and barbarity.
 
Hodos said:
The first crusade quickly went off the rails in both scope and barbarity.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the first victims of the crusaders were not Muslims, but German Jews.


Admittedly the perpetrators were members of the People’s Crusade, not the First Crusaders, but the Jews were still the first casualties of the zealotry of Crusaders.
 
TMC said:
No and no. As at least the last three Popes have made clear, the use of force and war in the name of Christianity is wrong and a denial of the basic tenets of the faith.
Click to expand...
This is my opinion as well. I refrained from mentioning this in my original post to avoid people responding to my opinion rather than discussing and giving their own opinions of the Crusades.
 
Last edited:
It’s super easy to put our own 21st century bias on actions of people that lived several hundred years ago. My suggestion - study the crusades from good sources like Thomas Madden and find the truth.

Find out why these Christians would sell everything they own to go on a pilgrimage that was surely a one way ticket.
 
There were certainly problems that happened, but ultimately they were a holy, and wholly justified, military exercise. Christian pilgrims were being accosted and killed left and right, and the Muslim overlords didn’t see any reason to try to change anything.

It’s just took bad we weren’t able to hold the territory permanently.
 
Salibi said:
Do you think they were necessary?

Do you think they were holy ?
Click to expand...
Necessary? Depends from which of the reasons (there was more than one) you look at it. It of course was not necessary to assist the Byzantines against Islamic forces trying to conquer their lands; but morally speaking it would have been very hard to justify not providing some assistance out of mutual love and love for the welfare and well-being of fellow Christians. From a geopolitical perspective, outside of a guarantee from Muslims states not to perform either wars of conquest or to participate in or conduct Jihad, Western security was threatened as the Byzantine Empire was part of the Eastern Front, so to speak, of Christian Europe. Of course, while not absolutely necessary, it is certainly true that if the Byzantines were too weakened then the West would have come under very real threat and danger from a military or defense perspective.

The second primary reason was more strictly spiritual: namely guaranteeing access to Christian holy sites in the Near-East and guaranteeing the security of pilgrims from physical molestation, exploitation or other abuses. This is a basic religious and human right. In this context, the Crusaders were pilgrims on a pilgrimage and were only armed incidentally (for self-defense). In reality, of course, and because of the first reason above, this would have been laughable to the Muslims as you couldn’t detach liberating Christian and Byzantine lands from the stated aims or goals of the pilgrims. But so far as that goes, the desire to perform a pilgrimage is, of course, a holy thing and I doubt any Muslim would have denied that, now or then.

Unfortunately as history sadly records, there were no shortage of absolutely horrible characters at the forefront of managing or leading the Crusades and definitely very evil elements that manipulated the Crusaders into being engines for their private benefit or enrichment. The Venetians, for example, did not see the Byzantines as an ally or friend but primarily as a major competitor, particularly in trade. Many also saw the wealth of the Byzantines as an opportunity to enrich themselves at their need (for military aid) or expense. None of that was holy and none of it was necessary and, most unfortunately, the Crusaders did at times fall prey to these tempters, shaming themselves and the honor of the Christian religion.
 
Last edited:
I read The First Crusade by Thomas Asbridge

I came away seeing the Crusade as immoral and against everything Jesus taught.

Pope Urban II, promised an indulgence which would have the soul by-pass purgatory, for anyone volunteering to join the crusade and kill muslim men. His goal was primarily to try and get the Byzantines united back with Rome.

As it was, Peter the Hermit, a fanatic, put together his own unofficial crusade and their first order of business, was to wipe out an entire village of Jews, on their way East.

They never made it however as they failed to reach the Holy Land.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, it took three years for the official Crusaders to make it to Jerusalem and they had to fight and take other cities along the way, Of course as in all wars, evil acts are done. Rape, pillage and other forms of evil took place.

Don’t try to justify the Crusades, you’ll fail in the attempt.

Jim
 
Lack of faith and lust for power, is what drove the Church into the Crusades

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church, but the Church attempted to throw that teaching out the window.

Even St Francis of Assisi, opposed the crusades and was disgusted in what he saw when he went to the Holy Land

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Also, if memory serves me correctly, it took three years for the official Crusaders to make it to Jerusalem and they had to fight and take other cities along the way, Of course as in all wars, evil acts are done. Rape, pillage and other forms of evil took place.
Click to expand...
They made a detour in Edessa so that one Count (Bohemund or Raymond of Toulouse, I’m not sure-it’s been a long time since I’ve read that book) could establish a Levantine lordship there. They wasted valuable time conquering cities not on the way to Jerusalem so that the military commanders of the campaign could establish lordships as well. They also hoodwinked Alexis Comnenus, Byznatine Emperor, of tons of gold; they refused to leave Constantinople for Asia Minor until the Emperor paid them a hefty amount of gold.

“JimR-OCDS said:
As it was, Peter the Hermit, a fanatic, put together his own unofficial crusade and their first order of business, was to wipe out an entire village of Jews, on their way East.
Click to expand...
Peter the Hermit and Count Raymond of Toulouse created a fraudulent Holy Lance relic- ultimately, Peter burned trying to prove its authenticity.

Did I also mention that Peter was caught trying to escape the Crusade?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top