Crusades

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 7 2005, 03:13 AM'] Yo, just read a review on Family.org about "kingdom of heaven". The writer states that the crusades could not be justified. He goes on to say (apparently) that fighting is never justified.

I guess this guy wishes that Europe was overrun by blood-thirsty turks fighting under the banner of Islam
[/quote]
The Crusades were totally just and moral.

If it wasn't for the crusades, Europe would be muslim.


[b]Crusades[/b]
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas. Crusading declined rapidly during the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation and the decline of papal authority.

Approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world had been conquered by Muslims by the end of the 11th century, including the important regions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia. The Crusades, attempting to check this advance, initially enjoyed success, founding a Christian state in Palestine and Syria, but the continued growth of Islamic states ultimately reversed those gains. By the 14th century the Ottoman Turks had established themselves in the Balkans and would penetrate deeper into Europe despite repeated efforts to repulse them.




"Crusades." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service
12 May 2005 [url="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9110241"]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9110241[/url]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 12 2005, 09:28 AM'] 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. [/quote]
First-- That was the norm for was in Spain, it happened yearly. That toledo was abandoned is an indication of the ferocity of the conquest people, do not tend to abandon cities for no reason.

As to the Cannablism charge I assume you are talking about the supposed cannibalism at Ma'arra as this is the only place any reasonable charge can be made. Now I am not conceding that this is infact a true event at all ( I have never been able to find a copy of this letter Maalouf cites) but assuming that it is, it was one inspired by incredable hunger and hardly a normal activity. Now even the greatest hunger does not justify canniblism but it does mitigate the culpability of the crusades in doing so, further this in no way renders the war itself unjust, while the act might be barbaric even criminal it doen't countermand the justification for the war to begin with.

Now as to the threat to the Byzantines not being causal, despite the Schism, Pope Urban II and all of the Popes after him concidered them to be part of the universal chriatian church, this is obvious not just from the papal writings and from Urban's speech at Clermont buit by the excommunication of the entire fourth crusade for attacking them. so certianly there was a universal threat, further the entire South of europe was in current conflict with the muslims at the time. To say that there was no threat is absurd.

[Don John of Austria]

Lets not forget that the Muslims sacked Rome itself in 864 and looted St. Peter's and St. Paul's. in the 10th century muslims isvaded southern france agian and conquered most of the lands between France and Italy.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 11 2005, 09:08 PM'] 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]
[QUOTE]

And I would argue that this sacking was not limited to the Westerners.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 12 2005, 09:02 AM'] The Crusades were totally just and moral.

If it wasn't for the crusades, Europe would be muslim. [/quote]
Can you honestly say that?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 12 2005, 02:23 PM'] Can you honestly say that? [/quote]
The crusades were just, and anyone who thinks otherwise either does not know enough about them or has a flawed sense of what moral and just war means.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp[/url]




God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 12, 2005 by ironmonk

[Q the Ninja]

And that would be me then.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 12 2005, 02:29 PM'] And that would be me then. [/quote]
That would mean then to either study more about the crusades and/or the Catechism on just and moral war... or you do have a third option, to continue go on being wrong.

You don't have to accept truth if you don't want to. There is a lot of misinformation out in the world about the Crusades.

Yes, there were individual men who abuses their place in the crusades, but that does not make the crusades wrong or immoral just as a priest who is guilty of sinning make the Church not the Church of Christ.

Critical thinking and logic need to be applied when dialoging in matters of theology, morals, faith, etc...


Again, here are the links:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp[/url]
God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 12, 2005 by ironmonk

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 12 2005, 11:33 AM'] That would mean then to either study more about the crusades and/or the Catechism on just and moral war... or you do have a third option, to continue go on being wrong. [/quote]
Well, I've had a class on Catholic Moral Theology, including the Just War Doctrine, so I doubt that I don't understand Catholic teaching, and I abide by it...

I've had encounters with only one crusade, and this is the reason I don't think that we can call all the Crusades just.

[quote]You don't have to accept truth if you don't want to. There is a lot of misinformation out in the world about the Crusades. [/quote]

Would you say the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source then? I remember one section where it says:[quote]On 12 April, 1204, Constantinople was carried by storm, and the next day the ruthless plundering of its churches and palaces was begun. [/quote]

I do believe that cancels out the Just War Doctrine. If that isn't enough, then this should be:[quote]In the many attempts made to establish the Christian states the efforts of the crusaders had been directed solely toward the object for which the Holy War had been instituted; the crusade against Constantinople shows the first deviation from the original purpose. For those who strove to gain their ends by taking the direction of the crusades out of the pope's hands, this new movement was, of course, a triumph, but for Christendom it was a source of perplexity.[/quote]

The whole crusade was lost, not just by certain people. It didn't fulfill its purpose, and not really for a good reason.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 12 2005, 02:41 PM'] Well, I've had a class on Catholic Moral Theology, including the Just War Doctrine, so I doubt that I don't understand Catholic teaching, and I abide by it...

I've had encounters with only one crusade, and this is the reason I don't think that we can call all the Crusades just.



Would you say the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source then?  I remember one section where it says:

I do believe that cancels out the Just War Doctrine.  If that isn't enough, then this should be:

The whole crusade was lost, not just by certain people.  It didn't fulfill its purpose, and not really for a good reason. [/quote]
Oh, [u][b]a[/b][/u] class, that makes you an expert? There are priests with years of study on the subject that get things wrong. A single class doesn't hold much weight.

The crusades were just, the cause was just... when the crusades were taken out of the pope's hands they turned. This was not the original intent. The original intent of the crusades were totally just.

There were 8 crusades...
the first, 1095-1101;
the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;
the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;
the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;
the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;
the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);
the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;
the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 12, 2005 by ironmonk

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='May 12 2005, 12:23 PM'] Can you honestly say that? [/quote]
I can honestly say that without the Crusades the Church would likly be no more.

Now before you respond " but the gates of Hell will not prevail agianst " let me just head you off---- they didn't did they, we had Crusades.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 12 2005, 12:27 PM'] The crusades were just, and anyone who thinks otherwise either does not know enough about them or has a flawed sense of what moral and just war means.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp[/url]




God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Actually, you're wrong. The truth is, I've studied the crusades in great detail, being a medievalist myself. There were not 8 crusades in my mind either. You've only listed the ones targeting the holy land, leaving out the Reconquista in Spain, the Albigensian Crusades in France, the Prussian Crusade, the Wendish Crusade, the Livonian crusade, and a few more that aren't coming to me off the top of my head.

Studying the crusades doesn't necessarily mean you will come to the conclusion that they were just. I think I've shown with real evidence that there is real reason for doubting the justice of these wars.

That having been said, it was all just an exercise of the mind because I happen to think the crusades were just wars.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 12 2005, 04:05 PM'] I can honestly say that without the Crusades the Church would likly be no more.

Now before you respond " but the gates of Hell will not prevail agianst " let me just head you off---- they didn't did they, we had Crusades. [/quote]
I disagree. The orthodox church survived the persecution of Islam. Now, you're right in that the Catholic church would be much, much, much smaller. But I don't think you could stamp it out entirely. Besides, even without the crusades, the muslims never would have conquered Europe.

With a name like Don John, I think you'd know that the gravest threat to mainland europe came from the Ottomans and that they were defeated without the need for any crusades (even if a couple of popes tried to get some organized). Now without the Crusading orders......well you might have a point there.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 12 2005, 07:12 PM'] Actually, you're wrong.  The truth is, I've studied the crusades in great detail, being a medievalist myself.  There were not 8 crusades in my mind either.  You've only listed the ones targeting the holy land, leaving out the Reconquista in Spain, the Albigensian Crusades in France, the Prussian Crusade, the Wendish Crusade, the Livonian crusade, and a few more that aren't coming to me off the top of my head.

Studying the crusades doesn't necessarily mean you will come to the conclusion that they were just.  I think I've shown with real evidence that there is real reason for doubting the justice of these wars.

That having been said, it was all just an exercise of the mind because I happen to think the crusades were just wars. [/quote]
You need to check your sources.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Britannica.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 13, 2005 by ironmonk

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 12 2005, 09:16 PM'] You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the Catholic Encyclopedia.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Well they might want to do a bit more research then.