Crusades

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 10 2005, 05:08 PM'] I didn't concede... [/quote]
Nor did you oppose except on the fourth crusade. They were all excommunicated so it wasn't a real crusade. So it doesn't count.

[Q the Ninja]

It earns the name Crusade.

Also, I haven't read up on them all.

[ardillacid]

An act commited during a war, doesn't affect the "justness" of the war. If that were so, no war would be justified. The 4th was legit.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

The Fourth Crusade began as a legitimate, justified crusade. However, the end result was not the intended one and certainly was not legitimate or justified, as the rounds of excommunication can attest to.

So, to be precise, the causality of the Fourth Crusade was justifiable and proper, the end result of said crusade was not.

It's a mixed bag.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 10 2005, 07:08 PM'] I didn't concede... [/quote]
I didn't realize you where in opposition, you are ussually so orthodox and the justifiability of Crusades is a matter of Faith and declared by Councils most of the Crusades where called by Councils. Councils are Infallable after all.

[Q the Ninja]

LoL, I actually have no opinion beyond the fourth one.

I would also like to add that not every part of every council can be infallible. Just look at Trent on the reception of Holy Communion, which forbids Communicating under both species for the laity. That was dealing with something other than faith or morals (discipline) and so the fact that a council called for the Crusades doesn't absolutely make it just.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 11 2005, 11:53 AM'] LoL, I actually have no opinion beyond the fourth one.

I would also like to add that not every part of every council can be infallible. Just look at Trent on the reception of Holy Communion, which forbids Communicating under both species for the laity. That was dealing with something other than faith or morals (discipline) and so the fact that a council called for the Crusades doesn't absolutely make it just. [/quote]
Actually it does, First War is not a matter of disipline but of Faith and Morals, the Church has concistantly declared that war falls under that banner, so to declare war does infact make a statement that that war is just. Further penalties of excommunication are declared for those who interfere with such Crusades, Anathama has always been intepreted to be a declaration of infallably so much so that it has been argued that those things with such penalties are not infallable at all.

[KizlarAgha]

I would argue that the migration of Turkic peoples which spawned the Emperor Alexius' call for help in no way justified a holy war. Alexius was asking for a force of mercenaries that he could use to defend his territories. The result was an ill-led campaign of men attacking not Anatolia, but lands held by muslims for centuries.

While it is true that the muslims took the land from the Christians in the 7th century AD, that in no way justifies the attack on Jerusalem. At the time, new "states" had taken control of the region - not those which attacked the Christian holdings. Furthermore, these states were amenable to Christians and pilgrims alike.

The trouble began just a few years before the crusade itself when the Seljukids effectively disintegrated, allowing the success of the crusader armies. This disintegration is what caused the banditry which resulted in the deaths of pilgrims. It in no way represented a systematic closure of the holy land by the muslim authorities.

Furthermore, a fourth category to Augustinian just war is sometimes known as "proportionality" - is the response in proportion to the threat. I would argue that the sacking of so many prosperous towns and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents and military forces alike, while not unusual for western medieval warfare, constituted a breach of proportionality and thereby rendered the crusades unjust by Augustine's standards.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 01:53 PM'] Actually it does, First War is not a matter of disipline but of Faith and Morals, the Church has concistantly declared that war falls under that banner, so to declare war does infact make a statement that that war is just. Further penalties of excommunication are declared for those who interfere with such Crusades, Anathama has always been intepreted to be a declaration of infallably so much so that it has been argued that those things with such penalties are not infallable at all. [/quote]
Actually, Don John, I do not believe the Church can declare specific wars just or unjust.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 11 2005, 11:20 PM'] Actually, Don John, I do not believe the Church can declare specific wars just or unjust. [/quote]
They certianly may, they have done it many times through outhistory, particularly in the middle ages.

[Q the Ninja]

Do you have any documents by any chance?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 11 2005, 09:08 PM'] I would argue that the migration of Turkic peoples which spawned the Emperor Alexius' call for help in no way justified a holy war. Alexius was asking for a force of mercenaries that he could use to defend his territories. The result was an ill-led campaign of men attacking not Anatolia, but lands held by muslims for centuries.

While it is true that the muslims took the land from the Christians in the 7th century AD, that in no way justifies the attack on Jerusalem. At the time, new "states" had taken control of the region - not those which attacked the Christian holdings. Furthermore, these states were amenable to Christians and pilgrims alike.

The trouble began just a few years before the crusade itself when the Seljukids effectively disintegrated, allowing the success of the crusader armies. This disintegration is what caused the banditry which resulted in the deaths of pilgrims. It in no way represented a systematic closure of the holy land by the muslim authorities.

Furthermore, a fourth category to Augustinian just war is sometimes known as "proportionality" - is the response in proportion to the threat. I would argue that the sacking of so many prosperous towns and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents and military forces alike, while not unusual for western medieval warfare, constituted a breach of proportionality and thereby rendered the crusades unjust by Augustine's standards. [/quote]
What Alexis thought he would get being differant from what he got is quite irrelevant, the Holy Land was conquered territory anyway, the fact that in our modern world we make a distinction of "states" is also irrelevant there was no such distinction to the west, the Muslims had invaded Western Europe they still occupied Spain and periodically raided Italy, Sicilly and other Christian lands,. the Muslim threat was real to the West and the Request from the East for help was answered, precisly because they where Christians being attacked. Further the Fact that Alexis was not displeased with the Idea of the reconquest of the Levant is shon by the fact that he obliged the nobles of the First Crusade to swear fealty to him and promise they would rule the "reclaimed " lands as part of the Empire.


As to proportionality I completly disagree, the absolute expulsion of the Muslims would have been completly proportional whatever the effects to " prosperous towns".

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 11 2005, 11:36 PM'] What Alexis thought he would get being differant from what he got is quite irrelevant, the Holy Land was conquered territory anyway, the fact that in our modern world we make a distinction of "states" is also irrelevant there was no such distinction to the west, the Muslims had invaded Western Europe they still occupied Spain and periodically raided Italy, Sicilly and other Christian lands,. the Muslim threat was real to the West and the Request from the East for help was answered, precisly because they where Christians being attacked. Further the Fact that Alexis was not displeased with the Idea of the reconquest of the Levant is shon by the fact that he obliged the nobles of the First Crusade to swear fealty to him and promise they would rule the "reclaimed " lands as part of the Empire.


As to proportionality I completly disagree, the absolute expulsion of the Muslims would have been completly proportional whatever the effects to " prosperous towns". [/quote]
Your claim of complete proportionality is completely unbased on any evidence whatsoever. The sacking of Jerusalem and the slaughter of the inhabitants is but one example of the atrocities visited on the native peoples by the crusader armies. Sparing innocent lives is certainly a part of that proportionality. And even if you cavalierly dismiss the lives of muslims, many Christian deaths also occurred during these attacks. Where is your evidence that this sort of violence was "proportional" to what the Muslims were doing?

First of all, Spain was conquered by Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711AD. The sermon of Clermont launching the first Crusade was in 1095. Muslims had ruled the part of Spain they lived in for almost four hundred years. While it is easy to dismiss that in light of modern conceptions of the vastness of history, it would be less than equivalent to Spain suddenly launching an attack on California this year. I think we can all see that despite a previous claim to California, such a war would not be just in any way.

Similarly, an assault on Jerusalem, lost in the mid 600's was five centuries overdue. This would be like Britain launching an attack on France for the lands of Aquitaine lost during the 100 years war. Again, we can see that such a claim would be ridiculous at best.

Furthermore, Sicily belonged to the Muslims at the time just prior to the first crusade. I don't have the exact date for the Norman conquest but it was a bit before the crusade - 20-30 years before. Any Muslim raids into Sicily can be seen as counter raids for several reasons: The loss of Sicily, very recently. Norman piracy. Counters to raids made by Normans into North Africa. Of course, there were purely offensive raids but these must be contextualized.

In addition, Sicily had a mostly Muslim population at this time, and the administrators were also muslims - eunuchs in fact. Only the king was Christian, and his immediate retinue. Evidence even suggests that despite a Christian military elite, the king of Sicily used Muslim style armies with Muslim citizens.

The Holy Land wasn't conquered territory any more than the entire United States is conquered territory that the natives would be right to reclaim, or that Aquitaine is conquered territory for the British. Memories are long, and national memories longer, but that doesn't mean that land can be viewed as conquered territory for all eternity.

Alexius wasn't opposed to reconquest for the empire because he wanted to enlarge the empire. This can't be seen as an approval of the idea that the lands were Christian lands unrightfully stolen. He might use that rhetoric when it suited him, but he certainly negotiated with the Arabs living in those territories when it suited him as well. It can't be seen as a coherent Byzantine policy. Plus, the Crusaders didn't give the empire back its lands. So, one could argue that they were not reconquering anything, but conquering it for the first time. The roman empire controlled the lands before the Arabs, it wanted the lands back, the crusaders kept the lands. Therefore they can't be seen as anything but conquering foreigners.

So what we have is a war that meets 3 of the criteria for an Augustinian just war if you look at it only from the 11th century western european position. It fails dismally on the concept of proportionality, and if looked at from an eastern christian perspective it is even more abysmal. In addition, the Christians had no claims to the land, and the fears of a muslim conquest are greatly exaggerated. So, on the whole, these wars were unjust.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 12 2005, 12:18 AM'] Your claim of complete proportionality is completely unbased on any evidence whatsoever. The sacking of Jerusalem and the slaughter of the inhabitants is but one example of the atrocities visited on the native peoples by the crusader armies. Sparing innocent lives is certainly a part of that proportionality. And even if you cavalierly dismiss the lives of muslims, many Christian deaths also occurred during these attacks. Where is your evidence that this sort of violence was "proportional" to what the Muslims were doing?

First of all, Spain was conquered by Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711AD. The sermon of Clermont launching the first Crusade was in 1095. Muslims had ruled the part of Spain they lived in for almost four hundred years. While it is easy to dismiss that in light of modern conceptions of the vastness of history, it would be less than equivalent to Spain suddenly launching an attack on California this year. I think we can all see that despite a previous claim to California, such a war would not be just in any way.

Similarly, an assault on Jerusalem, lost in the mid 600's was five centuries overdue. This would be like Britain launching an attack on France for the lands of Aquitaine lost during the 100 years war. Again, we can see that such a claim would be ridiculous at best.

Furthermore, Sicily belonged to the Muslims at the time just prior to the first crusade. I don't have the exact date for the Norman conquest but it was a bit before the crusade - 20-30 years before. Any Muslim raids into Sicily can be seen as counter raids for several reasons: The loss of Sicily, very recently. Norman piracy. Counters to raids made by Normans into North Africa. Of course, there were purely offensive raids but these must be contextualized.

In addition, Sicily had a mostly Muslim population at this time, and the administrators were also muslims - eunuchs in fact. Only the king was Christian, and his immediate retinue. Evidence even suggests that despite a Christian military elite, the king of Sicily used Muslim style armies with Muslim citizens.

The Holy Land wasn't conquered territory any more than the entire United States is conquered territory that the natives would be right to reclaim, or that Aquitaine is conquered territory for the British. Memories are long, and national memories longer, but that doesn't mean that land can be viewed as conquered territory for all eternity.

Alexius wasn't opposed to reconquest for the empire because he wanted to enlarge the empire. This can't be seen as an approval of the idea that the lands were Christian lands unrightfully stolen. He might use that rhetoric when it suited him, but he certainly negotiated with the Arabs living in those territories when it suited him as well. It can't be seen as a coherent Byzantine policy. Plus, the Crusaders didn't give the empire back its lands. So, one could argue that they were not reconquering anything, but conquering it for the first time. The roman empire controlled the lands before the Arabs, it wanted the lands back, the crusaders kept the lands. Therefore they can't be seen as anything but conquering foreigners.

So what we have is a war that meets 3 of the criteria for an Augustinian just war if you look at it only from the 11th century western european position. It fails dismally on the concept of proportionality, and if looked at from an eastern christian perspective it is even more abysmal. In addition, the Christians had no claims to the land, and the fears of a muslim conquest are greatly exaggerated. So, on the whole, these wars were unjust. [/quote]
First I am well aware of the dates in question thank you. Now lets look at this from point to point.



You say: [quote]First of all, Spain was conquered by Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711AD.  The sermon of Clermont launching the first Crusade was in 1095.  Muslims had ruled the part of Spain they lived in for almost four hundred years.  While it is easy to dismiss that in light of modern conceptions of the vastness of history, it would be less than equivalent to Spain suddenly launching an attack on California this year.  I think we can all see that despite a previous claim to California, such a war would not be just in any way.[/quote]


I answer:

Spain was invaded in 711 and as the Visagothic Kingdom was in shambles took it after only 3 years of fighting, however all of Spain did not fall, there where a few small kingdoms seeds of the great kingdoms to come which continued to resist for the Next 800 years until they finally expelled the Mohammedians from Spanish soil. Had Spain been fighting in California for the last 200 years, every year gaining a few more inches no one would claim that their claim wasn’t valid, further that conflict would effect the perceptions of those who sympathized with Spain. So your attempt to cloud the issue of the Muslim conquest and the constant action going on there has no real merit. Further it should be noted that contrary to myths of Moslem tolerance the Moslem rulers in Spain where excessively cruel to the Christians there, making a tradition of wiping out city's to the last man, and selling the women and Children into slavery. There was a tradition of taking all the heads of those Christians killed and piling them in two great piles between which a rider would ride on horse back if the emir could see the head of the Rider there was not enough heads and the Campaign would continue, if it was to late in the season for that the campaign was considered a failure. This is just an example and not the only one of the Moslem " tolerance" in Spain. Many knights from other parts of Europe, had gone there to fight and it directly affected the view of Moslems in the Christian West.


Now to Sicily, You say: [quote]Furthermore, Sicily belonged to the Muslims at the time just prior to the first crusade.  I don't have the exact date for the Norman conquest but it was a bit before the crusade - 20-30 years before.  Any Muslim raids into Sicily can be seen as counter raids for several reasons:  The loss of Sicily, very recently.  Norman piracy.  Counters to raids made by Normans into North Africa.  Of course, there were purely offensive raids but these must be contextualized.

In addition, Sicily had a mostly Muslim population at this time, and the administrators were also muslims - eunuchs in fact.  Only the king was Christian, and his immediate retinue.  Evidence even suggests that despite a Christian military elite, the king of Sicily used Muslim style armies with Muslim citizens[/quote]


I answer: Sicily was never a Moslem country in the sense that you describe it, it was always occupied land, The invasion under Asad Ibn al Furat Ibn Sinan was launched in A.D. 827 but the conquest was not complete until A.D. 903--- 76 years later the Greek & Roman Christian population was decimated and multitudes where sent to North Africa as slaves however they where not eliminated ( in fact some towns in Sicily still speak Greek and have a Greek culture) it was not until 965 that arabization was truly started in earnest and North Africans where brought in en masse. Thus when the Norman invasion occurred in 1083 and his conquest was complete in 1092 it was a mere 120 years that Arabization was really going on, to understand further the arabization only started because of a Byzantine attempt to reclaim the Island. There where further attempts the last major one in 1040. Now the Norman conquest of Sicily finally occurred in 1092 5 years after Alexis’ first request and 3 years before the one that was answered. The Arabic counter attacks where happening right then and raids into Italy had been occurring for hundreds of years by this point.

Contrary to moderns losing perspective about the vastness of history I think our idea of speed has increased our since of that vastness, pre-modern men did not think of Claim in terms of years or even decades but in terms of centuries numerous are the wars fought over a cause 100 years before, and land was always viewed so. Further it is not National memories of which I speak but Religious memories, if Israel conquered Mecca how long would Moslems fight to reclaim it, I wager the answer is simple---- as long as there were Moslems to fight. That the West was in turmoil when the Jerusalem fell and for years later and that the Moslems where on an offensive against Christian lands during that time does not invalidate the right of Christianity to counter attack, the flow of history is vast but not that vast, not so vast as to lose religious zeal. The Crusades where not an attack to recover the Holy Land 300 years after the fact the crusades where a counter attack in a 1000 year long continuous war between Islam and Christianity. It started in the 630’s and continued up to near 1700, That the Moslems where on the attack for the first 300 years doesn’t invalidate the right of Christianity to counter attack after recovering from the shock from losing half the Christian world. The Fall of Jerusalem was a bloody affair but no more bloody than the Moslem conquest of Spain and North Africa.

[KizlarAgha]

Actually, I'd contend that the bloodshed you're mentioning in medieval Iberia is incorrect. Tariq ibn Ziyad and subsequent raids into Iberia which conquered all but the top fifth of the peninsula did not do significant damage to population centers. In fact, Toledo was already abandoned by the time Muslim armies arrived.

Your reference to heads being piled up probably comes from Almoravid sources, and possibly slightly earlier to the reign of abd al-Rahman III at the very earliest. As such, they can't be seen as the status quo on the peninsula, or the ways in which the wars were generally carried out. The muslims allowed Christians and Jews to go about their lives. Many Christians converted to Arab culture without converting to Islam.

But this is all really besides the point. The question is whether or not the attacks on the Muslims in the Holy Land were justified. The answer must be that, even from an 11th century Christian perspective, they were not. Slaughtering population centers and devouring the inhabitants is not proportional to the threat the Muslims in the Holy Land posed to Christianity. In fact, there wasn't a threat at all, especially not at the time the crusades were launched.

The Byzantines may have been threatened, but they were excommunicated in 1054 anyway and that excommunication wasn't rescinded until the 20th century. Therefore, you can't even argue about a threat to universal Christendom. It just wasn't there.

I've supplied the requirements for an Augustinian just war and the crusades simply don't fit the category of proportionality because of the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents in many different cities. Plus the whole, eating saracens thing, that kind of bugged me.