Crusades

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]Watch out, in a few years we will see Muslim heads of state in Western Europe. [/quote]

i don't know. unlikely.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='May 7 2005, 09:19 PM']
i don't know. unlikely. [/quote]
With current demographic trends in Europe, a very real possibility (maybe not in literally a "few years," but within a generation.)

Edited May 8, 2005 by Socrates

[Curt F.]

Haha, no, I'm not a Nazi, I just found that banner on a website and I found it funny. I'm not meaning to offend or anything, I just find it funny how people can twist facts like that

And I stand by my position. The Crusades were an act of prejudice against the Muslims. There may have been some minor reasons, but to start a whole century worth of fighting? That's definately unjustified.

[cmotherofpirl]

The crusades were an act of justified war against the Muslims.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Curt F.' date='May 7 2005, 11:00 PM'] And I stand by my position. The Crusades were an act of prejudice against the Muslims. There may have been some minor reasons, but to start a whole century worth of fighting? That's definately unjustified. [/quote]
[QUOTE]


So maybe when the muslims were besieging Vienna we should have made friends

[Aloysius]

yeah I like your sig as well.

however, your position here on the crusades itself is slightly skewed. if there were no cultural or religious differences, and it was just Europeans and Arabs, what would you think? if European vacationers kept getting killed when they went to their favorite vacation spot, would Europe have a just claim against the Arab nations that allowed that to happen, or actually sponsored such attacks on the European vactationers? Arabs that had just conquered the whole middle east, north africa and beyond, now pokin their way through Spain... what is Europe to do? see, much of the secular opposition to the crusades stems from their anti-religious attitude, as soon as religion enters the mix it starts being more "irrrational" and such..

if it were just two groups of people, with one threatening to invade the other and killing its vacationers, I don't think you'd have a problem with the Europeans fighting back.

but since its two religions, the one threatening to invade and convert the other while killing its pilgrims, you have a problem with Catholics fighting back in the Name of God.

I see it all the time... like some secularists that don't oppose the death penalty would talk about how horrible it was for European Catholic Nations to burn heretics at the stake but they don't have a problem executing people for treason... essentially the same thing relatively

there were bad things done in the crusades that were not justifiable, but as a whole there was just cause; it was certainly a defensive war with the philosophy that the best defense is a good offence. The muslims, however, did begin the offensive... they were killing Christian pilgrims; they had already invaded and taken over what used to be Christian North Africa. they were in Spain, advancng against Europe basically from both sides... so we fought back and when we crushed them we began to look like the bad guys (and a in our slaughters we were the bad guys), but the overall cause was a just cause and we did succeed in defending Catholic Europe from Muslim Arab invasion

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

The crusades were moral, just, defensive wars against Islamic incursions in the east. The concept of them as motivated by anything other than religious fervor has largely been proven to be incorrect in most modern historical circles.

First and foremost, we must remember that in the middle ages, ethnicity was not the primary method of determining relationships. Religion was the national identity of the middle ages. As such, an attack against any Christian was an attack against "Christendom" that is, the entire body of Christians in the world.

Secondly, that attack did in fact take place over a period of four centuries. One could argue that the Muslims owned the land they lived on. They had taken it from the Byzantine empire in the 7th century and had been retained by them ever since. As such, the crusades as a reaction to those incursions could be seen as invalid.

However, the first crusade was justified because of the attacks of the Turks, more appropriately the Seljukids, into the region of Anatolia, a Byzantine holding at the time. Weakened by years of constant strife and poor emperors, the Byzantine empire needed help. Emperor Alexius Komnenos, the first of the Komnenoi emperors, asked the pope to send troops to help relieve the situation. The response to this cry for help was the first crusade.

Now, one might ask, "If this was about the Seljukid invasions, then why attack Jerusalem? What did that have to do with anything?"

I have several thoughts in response to this valid concern. Firstly, pilgrims had been harassed by the Turkic rulers of the region, and this was becoming a problem for the Christians. Secondly, the Turks who were attacking the Byzantines were part of the same empire which controlled Jerusalem. Thirdly, my personal theory is that the western Christians always wanted to retake Jerusalem. Forgive the comparison, but for a murder to take place, one needs motive, means, and opportunity.

The Christians had plenty of motive for wanting to regain Jerusalem. However, until the increased power of the papacy seen in the 11th century, they didn't have the central authority figure to give them the means to make this attack. Furthermore, the 11th century saw a boom in population and economy that was going to continue, and greatly increase over the next two centuries. This gave them further means to accomplish the goal. The opportunity came when the Pope offered a just war to fight back against Muslim incursions.

So, we can see that the first crusade was a just, defensive war. It was launched to defend the Byzantine empire and to open up the holy land to Christian pilgrimage. In addition, it was intended to reclaim the holy land from those who had conquered it from the Christians to begin with. Every subsequent crusade was even more just and more defensive. Why? Because each was launched in response to Muslim attacks on the new Christian territories in the region.

One might argue that the Muslims were simply trying to reclaim their own lands. However, that doesn't really hold water. In the middle ages, lands changed hands all of the time. Therefore, a war motivated solely to reclaim land loss wasn't seen as just. Had the first crusade been launched merely to steal Saracen lands, it would have been grossly illegal.

Finally, to debunk the notion of Crusaders as money hungry or power hungry, I have to add some important information. Firstly, most Christians took out loans and sold property to even raise enough money to go and fight. Almost nobody made a profit, and, as near as can be told from the source documents, nobody expected to.

Also, the notion that they wanted to steal Saracen lands is inappropriate. The documents clearly show that nearly all of the crusaders immediately returned to europe once the crusade was completed. In fact, so few stayed behind that it caused a manpower shortage which would continue to plague the crusader states for many years to come.

I hope I have been able to show that the crusades were not examples of Christian aggression, but rather defensive wars fought in support of the Byzantine empire. The 20th century produced a great deal of negative publicity for the crusades, and it was popular to ignore the piety of crusaders and see them as villains. At the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, leading historians have revised that notion and are instead seeing the crusaders for what they were: men motivated by religious piety, fighting a war they saw as just.

Edited May 8, 2005 by Ordo.Teutonicorum

[MichaelFilo]

That is quite interesting, and certainly insightful. But let me play Devil's advocate:
How do you justify the Crusades if the reason to launch them, to protect the Byzantine empire was not only met, but the exact oppisite was induced, at the hands of the crusaders?

God bless,
Mikey

[ardillacid]

Perhaps because the crusaders were lied to by the heir apparent. So they sacked the city. Not exactly a just retribution, but some sort of retaliation would be expected.

(plus this was the 4th crusade)

(I'm assuming you were talking about the sack of constantinople, though i could be wrong)

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 8 2005, 01:08 AM'] That is quite interesting, and certainly insightful. But let me play Devil's advocate:
How do you justify the Crusades if the reason to launch them, to protect the Byzantine empire was not only met, but the exact oppisite was induced, at the hands of the crusaders?

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Well it is quite simple really - and by that I mean hideously complex. Hold on to your miters...

The fourth crusade was launched and targeted at recovering Jerusalem from the Muslims. However, the huge numbers of troops needed to be transported to the holy land somehow. Well, the Venetians of course had a huge navy. So, the leaders of the expedition signed a contract with the venetians based on their overall force and the amount of money the overall force could pay.

When the meeting time came around, some people went by a different route, or chartered their own vessels. So, they didn't have the money to pay the Venetians. Now, the Venetians of course weren't about to let the crusaders go back on the contract. So, a deal was made with the Doge of Venice. The crusaders would attack the Hungarian city of Zara which had just been recently captured from the Venetians.

The people of Zara had made a pact with the pope, knowing that the Venetians would attack. This document, signed by Innocent III, threatened excommunication from anyone who would attack the city. It is important now to make a distinction between the rank and file crusaders and the leaders. The leaders knew about this, the rank and file never did.

Well, some of the leaders immediately turned around and went home. Some, swayed by the Doge, and their desire to finish the crusade after having wasted so much money, decided to stay and attack Zara.

After sacking Zara, things get even weirder. The crusaders are approached by the Byzantine Alexius whose father, Isaac II, had been overthrown by his own brother. The Crusaders weren't sure whether they should attack other Christians, but the doge saw an opportunity because he hated the Byzantines. Furthermore, Alexius had been illegally deposed, and made a strong case.

So, the Crusaders went to Constantinople. Far from being greeted warmly, the Byzantines preferred a usurper to the Latins. However, Emperor Alexius III, the usurper, fled in terror. Alexius IV then took the throne. He had promised the Crusaders the money they needed to pay off their huge debt to the Venetian Doge. So they waited for the money. And waited. And waited. And waited.

While they were waiting, the citizens of Constantinople began to attack and harass the crusaders. So, Alexius IV ordered them to go back to the other side of the golden horn, and to wait longer. Then, he was strangled by Alexius Ducas, soon to be Alexius V.

When that happened, it enraged the Crusaders who had spent so much time and money helping Alexius IV, giving him back his power, and waiting for the reward they had never been given. So, in a rage, they sacked Constantinople. All the while, the rank and file never knew that they had been excommunicated for the attack on Zara.

So you can see, it isn't so clear cut an issue. The crusaders were doing their best to solve moral issues that were hurled at them. Just because the end result was the sacking of Constantinople doesn't mean that was what was intended. I don't think the crusaders ever anticipated such an action, even up to the death of Alexius IV.

[phatcatholic]

i was bored......

[b]The Crusades[/b]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm"]Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3387"]Crusade Myths[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3209"]Crusade Propaganda: The Abuse of Christianity's Holy Wars[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3225"]Crusading They Went: The Deeds and Misdeeds of Our Spiritual Kin[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3099"]Rethinking the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3089"]Objective Analysis of the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3307"]The Battle Over the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=968"]The Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3095"]History and Apologetic for the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3386"]The Crusades and Their Critics[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=3366"]The Real History of the Crusades[/url]
--[url="ftp://members.aol.com/kcc1tim/Crusades.txt"]The Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=148"]"If I Forget You, Oh Jerusalem": The Truth About the Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/crusades.html"]Apologia: The Crusades[/url]
--[url="http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/crusades2.html"]Crusades: Truth and Black Legend[/url]
--[url="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-maddenprint110201.html"]Crusade Propaganda[/url]
--[url="http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/historian/crusade.html"]The Meaning of the Crusade[/url]

[Q the Ninja]

How do we justify the Fourth Crusade?

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 11:16 AM'] How do we justify the Fourth Crusade? [/quote]
I already did. Read the thread.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Wow. You people are actually trying to lump all the crusades into one big happy pile?


Please, please, please go read a book.


The fourth "crusade" started out rightly enough and went terribly wrong. No real historian denies that.

But to try and lump it with the first crusade (the only REAL crusade) in terms of justification is not only ludicrious but shows a real ignorance of the subject.

I wish people would quit talking about things they know nothing about.


Ninja out.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Just because they didn't "intend" to sack Constantinople doesn't mean that it's justified.

In the end, those crusaders remained excommunicated for the final sacking.

Therefore, unjustified.



On a separate note, I appreciate your choice of screen name Teutonic one. Just did a term paper one them. Kudos!