Crusades

[MichaelFilo]

I think that suffeciently answers the question.

God bless,
Mikey

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 01:42 PM'] 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! [/quote]
It isn't a religiously justified operation, true enough. But at the same time, the crusaders were still not acting from the bloodthirsty greed everyone assumes. And, as we can see, the Church excommunicated those responsible, thusly illustrating the justness of crusades in general.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 8 2005, 11:38 AM'] I already did. Read the thread. [/quote]
[quote]...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.
[/quote]

You tried to justify based on the intention of the crusade, but the intention does not equal the act itself. The fact that they stopped in Constantinople and sacked the city shows that it cannot be just.

The crusade never made it to the intended stop, and so we cannot look at intention as making it just.

Also, while the crusaders were in town, they sacked the town. Now, however you look at it, there's no way that this action can be justified. That's what I'm getting at, you can't really justify this crusade, but maybe it could have ended up a just one had the crusaders not ended up in the wrong place.

(PS I learned about the sacking from a Byzantine scholar.

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 04:41 PM']

You tried to justify based on the intention of the crusade, but the intention does not equal the act itself. The fact that they stopped in Constantinople and sacked the city shows that it cannot be just.

The crusade never made it to the intended stop, and so we cannot look at intention as making it just.

Also, while the crusaders were in town, they sacked the town. Now, however you look at it, there's no way that this action can be justified. That's what I'm getting at, you can't really justify this crusade, but maybe it could have ended up a just one had the crusaders not ended up in the wrong place.

(PS I learned about the sacking from a Byzantine scholar. [/quote]
Well I have quite a great fondness for the Byzantines myself, and I have read Niketas Choniates' assessment of things in addition to Villehardouin and the European side of things.

I don't think the sacking of Constantinople was religiously justified. However, I wanted to show that it was a complicated issue, involving lots of missteps, wrong turns, bad advice, and miscommunications. Also, even as someone who loves the Byzantines, they are more at fault than the crusaders on this one, in my opinion. Assigning blame is difficult, but they chose to involve outsiders in their own politics.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 8 2005, 02:19 PM'] It isn't a religiously justified operation, true enough. But at the same time, the crusaders were still not acting from the bloodthirsty greed everyone assumes. And, as we can see, the Church excommunicated those responsible, thusly illustrating the justness of crusades in general. [/quote]
Okay, this I can possibly see, but my whole point so far was to keep from lumping the crusades together.

I still think they sacked the city...

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 8 2005, 04:44 PM'] Okay, this I can possibly see, but my whole point so far was to keep from lumping the crusades together.

I still think they sacked the city... [/quote]
Yes. They sacked the city. But that's what medieval armies do to conquered cities - they sack them. It is very standard practice and not at all unusual. We might see it as cruel and overly violent, but in doing so we aren't understanding the warfare of the times.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Niccolò' date='May 7 2005, 07:08 PM'] Unless, of course, if Europe is again threatened by the Turks...which I don't see happening in the near future. [/quote]
I could see it happening very easily, now thatthe turksof central asia have been freed from Russian domination combined with the surge of Turkish nationalism currently experianced in Turkey a Turkish Muslim resergence is certianly possible, but I doubt any Martelswill be in Europe to meet them, and I am sure there will be no Godfrey's to counter attack. Europe is virtually worthless now.

[Don John of Austria]

The Fourth Crusade was as all of the Crusades a Good and Holy thing, However like many Good and Holy things ( such as theological studies which turn to heresy) it was perverted by the Evil One and the weakness of men. In Penalty the Crusaders themselves where Excommunicated, That does not render the Crusade unjustified, it renders the act of the Crusade unjustified. I don't see whatthis really has to do with anything as the 4th Crusade is never what is at issue when people talk about the Crusades being justifiable or not, they are talking about the intent to take the Holy Land from the infidel and the fact thatthe West was not only prepared to fight for the Faith but that the Church offered Indulgences for the act of fighting on Crusade.

May those Crusaders martyred for the Faith pray for us.


Of Course the Crusades a where Justified, anyone who argues differantly is either completly ignorant of reality or a hellbound heritic, or perhaps both. Manzekirt wasn';t a welcome over party that got out of Hand, it was a massive battle from which the greeks never recovered, the Emporer of Byzantium appealed to the Pope for aid agianst the invaders; the Pope sent it. There has never in all of history been more justifiable wars than the Crusades.


Any Catholic who denies their justifiablity is simply a heritic as they where infallably called in Council repetedly. God is merciful, but God is also a warrior, and he called his followers to War, end of story.

[Niccolò]

I see Turkey becoming more of an extension of secular Europe rather than a new base for Islamic expansionism. Of course the invasion of Cyprus and the suppression of the Kurds shows that the Turks indeed have a streak of nationalism in them, but I doubt that would turn to expansionism in Europe, especially since they desire to join the EU.

The greater threat to Europe is immigration from muslim countries, and you're right that the degenerate state of modern Europe does not bode well...I can envision missionaries from Africa, Asia, and South America going to the future Europe to convert the secular/pagan heathens.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Niccolò' date='May 8 2005, 05:26 PM'] I see Turkey becoming more of an extension of secular Europe rather than a new base for Islamic expansionism. Of course the invasion of Cyprus and the suppression of the Kurds shows that the Turks indeed have a streak of nationalism in them, but I doubt that would turn to expansionism in Europe, especially since they desire to join the EU.

The greater threat to Europe is immigration from muslim countries, and you're right that the degenerate state of modern Europe does not bode well...I can envision missionaries from Africa, Asia, and South America going to the future Europe to convert the secular/pagan heathens. [/quote]
Actually there is some concern thatthey may not Join the EU because of the re-emergent nationalism, it is serious. It is a wave of nationalism passing through the nation. Their high court just through out a law to allow forigen land ownership and their president threw out a bill to allow ending restrictions on forgien ownership of natonal broadcasters, saying it would harm national interest. Mein Kampf has hit the best seller list. and the Army General staff has just issued a statement vowing to defend the nation to its " last drop of Blood". Turkey best be watched.

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

I dunno...I happen to really like the Turks, the Ottomans, and Islam.

[Ellenita]

[quote]Europe is virtually worthless now. [/quote]

:angry:

I don't think we'd take an invasion lying down......and although it might be fair to take issue with the state of [i]some[/i] of the church in a number of countries in Europe, never the less, those countries continue to have the Christian faith at the heart of their structure.

Also I do not believe God will abandon us.....don't believe everything you read in the media.....there are Christians alive and living their faith in Europe!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum' date='May 8 2005, 06:05 PM'] I dunno...I happen to really like the Turks, the Ottomans, and Islam. [/quote]
Well I am sure your name sakes would not be happy to here you say that.

Edited May 8, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Niccolò]

[quote]Turkey best be watched.[/quote]

Indeed it should, just like every other predominately Islamic country, but it seems they'll be more concerned now and in the future with those ethnic groups such as the Kurds and Armenians that appear to threaten the integrity of Turkish borders (and Kurdish resistance is probably the reason for this nationalism).

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 8 2005, 06:05 PM']
:angry:

I don't think we'd take an invasion lying down......and although it might be fair to take issue with the state of [i]some[/i] of the church in a number of countries in Europe, never the less, those countries continue to have the Christian faith at the heart of their structure.

Also I do not believe God will abandon us.....don't believe everything you read in the media.....there are Christians alive and living their faith in Europe! [/quote]
It is not God who abandons but Men, Europe has abandoned God, that is why the EU won't even discuss the inclusion of Christianity in the Constitution. I'm not sure a Turk invasion wouldn't be an improvment.

I'm sorry but Weastern Europe looks more like the 2nd century Roman Empire than the Europe of old, It could use some invasions.