The Real History of the Crusades

[Nerthus]

Eventhough I don't agree with some points in it, here's an interesting article on the Crusades I read:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

[Perun]

What dont you agree with?

[Nerthus]

Well, other than the fact that the text looks a bit biased concerning Christianity
There are a few ambiguous points there...

Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.

While it's true that in a Christian society this may not happen, what about the tolerance for non-Christians? One word comes to mind... conversion

Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

I've adressed this issue before. I may be wrong, but I think the author is trying to minimise the economical aspect of the Crusades. Economical reasons don't necessarily have to result in overall successful gains.

In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

I highly doubt the Easterners and Westerners saw each others as "brothers" during that period. Orthodox Christians were often called "schismatics". Also, the 4th Crusade resulted in the conquest and sacking of Constantinople. If the city was a defensive strategic point against Asia, then it should have been strenghtened but instead it was submitted to fall.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Well, other than the fact that the text looks a bit biased concerning Christianity

Oh you say that as if it's a bad thing. Plus you got it from a Catholic publication.

While it's true that in a Christian society this may not happen, what about the tolerance for non-Christians? One word comes to mind... conversion

Is Christ a god of sacrifice or anti-sacrifice? That is the question, and indeed has much relevance to this topic.

I've adressed this issue before. I may be wrong, but I think the author is trying to minimise the economical aspect of the Crusades. Economical reasons don't necessarily have to result in overall successful gains.

I have addressed this as well. Recent research has shown that religious motivations were the key element in the Crusades, not economic.

I highly doubt the Easterners and Westerners saw each others as "brothers" during that period.

Nevertheless, it was the request for aid from the East to the West that gave the start to the Crusades.

[Nerthus]

Well I posted it for informational purposes. I don't always 100 % agree with everything I post from sources
As for the question regarding Christ, I couldn't answer it, but regarding conversion and tolerance, ideally for me would be a situation when one's religion - or lack of - coincides with one's faith. And since I'm addressing this and violence against Jews was also mentioned in the article... eventhough Christianity has often been accused to be anti-Semitic as in anti-Jewish, there have been Jews submitted to conversion to Christianity throughout history. They were given the option of conversion and the option of leaving the (European) countries they were residing in. While some left, I highly doubt those that did accept Christianity did it for reasons of faith.
In other countries nobility titles were directly linked to belonging to the Catholic Church. In this case I'm led to believe people saw Christanity/Catholicism more as an opportunity than as something they believed in and supported.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Well I posted it for informational purposes. I don't always 100 % agree with everything I post from sources

That's perfectly fine. You usually post interesting articles.

As for the question regarding Christ, I couldn't answer it, but regarding conversion and tolerance, ideally for me would be a situation when one's religion - or lack of - coincides with one's faith.

Well I debated the issue of sacrifice/anti-sacrifice in more detail over at Milesian's board.

Sadly I'm still suffering from chronic fatigue and exhaustion, so sadly right now I wont be able to go into detail. Perhaps tommorrow at the soonest.

Here's something that will give you a basic introduction to the concepts of sacrifice/anti-sacrifice and how it related to the Crusades:

"Chivalry supported conflicting responses to Christ's death: either a desire to take revenge against those who killed him or a willingness to forgive his persecutors....I call the first response sacrificial, because it calls for the taking of life to avenge the loss of another and thus perpetuating cyclical violence. I call the second response antisacrificial, because it opposes the taking of life and seeks to bring the cycle of violence to a halt. Chivalry, i argue, not only made both responses available to knights and to their modern descendents but validated a third response, self-sacrifice, that conflated prowess and piety and blurred the lines between sacrifice and antisacrifice."
-- Allen Franzten Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War pg.3

Basically the notion of sacrifice(in this context at least) holds that the unbelievers have killed Christ, even proudly proclaiming "his blood be upon us and upon our children", therefore Christ's wrongful death must be avenged with the blood of the infidel. "Eye for an Eye" so to speak.

Anti-sacrifice holds that Christ's death was meant to release man from the bondages of violence. Therefore the unbeliever should be forgiven. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do."

Christian theology and aesthetics concerning Christ's passion have been divided between these two views, sometimes giving emphasis to the former, other times to the latter.

The sacrificial view was very influential during the Crusades, for obvious reasons.

Anyways....I'll try to explain this in more detail later.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

And since I'm addressing this and violence against Jews was also mentioned in the article... eventhough Christianity has often been accused to be anti-Semitic as in anti-Jewish, there have been Jews submitted to conversion to Christianity throughout history. They were given the option of conversion and the option of leaving the (European) countries they were residing in. While some left, I highly doubt those that did accept Christianity did it for reasons of faith.

Ahh you're talking about the old Converso issue. Well the Jewish issue within Christian thought is closely linked to the sacrifice/anti-sacrifice issue of Christ's passion.

Christian thought has been divided into two camps when it came to the Jews. Both camps believed that the Jews killed Christ and for that they are cursed by God for eternity. St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori probably explained the common basic position best:

"Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads in saying: "His blood be on us and our children"; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood. O my Jesus! ... I will not be obstinate like the Jews. I will love thee forever, forever, forever!"

Now in that they were in agreement, but what exactly to do with the Jews was another matter.

The first school of thought is represented by St. Augustine, who taught that the Jews should survive but not thrive. That is, the Jews should not be massacred or such, but they should not be allowed to prosper as a community. The Jews in their wretched living state would serve as a reminder to all mankind of the Crucifixion and the disgrace they brought upon themselves by rejecting Christ.

The second school of thought is represented by St. John Chrysostom. He outlined his views on the question in his Homilies against the Jews. According to him, as he stated "the Jews are always degenerate because of their odious assassination of Christ. For this, no expiation is possible, no indulgence, no pardon."

Because of they killed Christ, who was God made man, the Jews in a sense are lower than dogs(in fact he mentions this in the first homilie). And according to some adherents of this school, they're basically lives unworthy of life. So whatever punishement one inflicts on the Jews, even violence, is basically their just deserts.

Martin Luther was for example an follower of this trend, especially when he outlines "pratical measures" when dealing with Jews:
"burn their synagogues, confiscate all books in Hebrew, prohibit Jewish prayers, force them to do manual labour, but, best of all, drive them out of Germany."

Then as he explained about how to baptize a Jew:
"If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'."

As with sacrifice/anti-sacrifice of Christ, Christianity has had to contend with these two different schools on the Jews; sometimes leaning towards the former other times to the latter. Yet it often varied not only from time to time but even place to place. Augustine's line of thought is often considered the mainstay of thw Western church's attitude towards the Jews(but not always as we above) while John Chrysostom's thought dominated more in the East. Both schools even differed within themselves as to degree. On both sides, there were those who were more extreme than others. It was a rather complex situation.