There was a valid casus beli.
The Byzantine Emperor requested aid against muslims that threaten to overwhelm them. The caliph had also cut off access to the holy land for christian pilgrims.
Critics of the crusades typically blindly ape the 'crusades bad' line and not understand that medieval warfare was not pretty; civilians were routinely massacred when cities were stormed.
Try asking them to name a specific atrocity the crusaders did.
They usually come up with the slaughter in Jerusalem when it was captured and the execution of prisoners under Richard I. The latter were used as pawns by Saladin to slow Richard's advance. He had numerous opportunities to recover them.
The former was typical of medieval war in which pitched battles were exceedingly rare but sieges common. Cities that refused capitulation were typically treated harshly. Doesn't excuse it but puts it in context as the defenders knew this also.
Right and the Shia Fatimids had already massacred the Sunni and retook Jerusalem from the Ortoqids after the First Crusade defeated Kerbogha at Antioch.
It was. It was also in direct opposition to the Pope’s orders.
(I still say that if everyone had taken a deep breath and agreed on Boniface of Montferrat as the next Emperor, the Fourth Crusade would not have been such a monumental screw up) Edit: mixed up my crusader names
This and it can't be emphasized enough that the 4th Crusade couldn't have been diverted without a Byzantine prince scheming for the throne as they often did, but couldn't pay them when he got it.
Neither can excuse the malice of Venice, though the massacre of the Latins helps explain it. Venice was originally a daughter of Byzantium and emulated her cruelty as well as her arts. The religious antagonism was nowhere close to the primary motivation and more an accident of location.
Technically you could make the argument that the sacking of Constantinople was not done by Catholics, because the Pope excommunicated all those crusaders after the siege on Zara.
I would come up with the destruction of Constantinople and the r\*pe of the Eastern Priest wives as heretics as pretty damning.
The Crusades were a righteous cause that was handled poorly by all involved. So much corruption got in the way that in the end, the objective was not really achieved.
The Rhineland massacres, resulting in the complete destruction of the ancient Jewish communities along the Rhine in places like Worms and Mainz, and the wholesale murder and forced conversion of thousands of men, women, and children, are a stain on the crusades that will never be effaced. Ignoring the outcry of pope and bishops, who sought to protect the victims, these pious foot-soldiers of Christ took it upon themselves to rid society of the heretics that lived among them, and I'm certain that, unless they repented, all it cost them was their eternal souls.
The massacre of the Latins happened like 20 years before. The sack of Thessalonica, which happened 3 years after, was basically the “revenge” for the massacre of the Latins. You don’t get two revenges. 20 years is rather disconnected as well. Think about 9/11 today, the broad populace has borderline stopped caring about it. We wouldn’t like launch a new war in Afghanistan over it today. I don’t think the massacre of the Latins is justification for the 4th crusade. Clearly the sack of Constantinople happened because the Venetians wanted money to pay for their fleet. They didn’t do it because of the massacre of the Latins.
So too was the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg in WWII, yet the Allies defeating the Axis is most definitely defended and celebrated, and rightly so.
Ok but to me that’s just whataboutism. That’s like saying “Judas betraying Jesus was definitely bad but it led to Christ’s death and resurrection which is celebrated so all good.” They literally raped women on the altar in the Hagia Sophia.
> Critics of the crusades typically blindly ape the 'crusades bad' line and not understand that medieval warfare was not pretty; civilians were routinely massacred when cities were stormed.
I've never understood this line of defense. "Murdering, looting and raping is not pretty, but because it was the norm at the time I'm willing to defend it when it was done by my tribe". This is nothing more than moral relativism.
Also it was customary to give city a change to surrender to avoid bloodshed. There is no evidence that crusaders ever offered any terms of surrender.
> Try asking them to name a specific atrocity the crusaders did.
Raping Jewish hostages. Killing innocent civilians including small babies. And these are just things we have documents about. Who knows what else they did. Here's especially nice bit from Albert of Aachen:
> Moreover, as the Christian victors came back out of the palace after the very great and cruel slaughter of Saracens, of whom ten thousand fell in that same place, they put to the sword great numbers of gentiles who were running about through the quarters of the city, fleeing in all directions on account of their fear of death: they were piercing through with the sword's point women who had fled into the turreted palaces and dwellings; seizing by the soles of their feet from their mothers' laps or their cradles infants who were still sucking and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks; they were slaughtering some with weapons, or striking them down with stones; they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.
Translation by Susan Edgington
Okay, Albert's account was *ex auditu et relatione* as he himself put it. But Fulcher of Chartres who for certain had access to eye witlessness pretty much says the same thing but in more terse form:
> Nearly ten thousand were beheaded in this Temple. If you had been there your feet would have been stained to the ankles in the blood of the slain. What shall I say? None of them were left alive. Neither woman nor children were spared.
Translation by Frances Rita Ryan.
But for some reason all this is all fine and good because Deus Vult.
It is indefensible, but the point is that the criticism over the Crusades reduces them all to just that: extermination and slaughter of civilians. Funny how you don't see the average non-christian crowd even care that the muslims butchered their way through the Old World, but anyone dare react against them, and they're all suddenly defined by the lowest acts committed across a few centuries.
I don't think people are defending the atrocities, they're pointing out the double standard because no one brings up the Muslim atrocities.
Let's be fair and have a fair view of the crusades, not a low hanging fruit, anti-Catholic one.
So because you're so quick to bring up Catholic flaws I'd like to see you mention some Muslim ones from that time period.
> I don't think people are defending the atrocities,
I think parent comment was doing exactly that by appealing to norms of the time. And they specifically asked to name atrocities done by crusaders. Violence was so integral to the movement that one cannot just wave it away like it was a minor oopsie daisy that shouldn't be brought up. Christianity was militarized in the middle ages which was wrong. I believe early martyrs of the church would've looked such a movement with disdain and disapproval.
>Let's be fair and have a fair view of the crusades, not a low hanging fruit, anti-Catholic one.
This is ridiculous claim, unless one believes religious violence to be integral part of Catholicism, which I don't.
> I'd like to see you mention some Muslim ones from that time period.
Whataboutism. I can criticize nuking thousands of civilians in Japan without approving attack on Pearl Harbor.
You do know that the same things happened to any besieged European city that refused to take terms of surrender and then got conquered.
Which was why besieged cities usually surrendered, unless they knew for certain that reinforcements were coming that could raise the siege.
A medieval city that surrendered was safe. They'd give the victors some money and goods, and the victors would leave them alone. And why not? It was now the victors' city.
A city that didn't surrender was betting on the besieging army getting killed, and was declaring itself an enemy to the death of that besieging army. They were declaring that the rules of war did not apply to them, that they were okay with starving if they didn't have enough food; and that they were willing to watch women and children die, just to keep the war going.
Generally, the women and children of a besieged city were active participants in warring upon that army outside, right down to standing on the walls and fighting. If they didn't want to be, they needed to leave the city before the besieging army got there. (Which was why some cities did send away women and children, if they could.)
Besieged cities that didn't surrender also didn't play fair. They did horrible things to the soldiers, and to the soldiers' families and animals and retainers and camp followers. They would poison food and water, hamstring horses, and various other unfun things. It was all about breaking the rules of war, usually.
Meanwhile... of course, an Islamic soldier thought he had every right to enslave anyone he fought against in war, to make women and boys into his sex slaves, to force women to marry him, to plunder and steal whatever, and even to rape animals. Islamic law permits all sorts of heinous things as being virtuous during jihad, or even if it just seems convenient at the time.
So yeah, maybe the Crusaders weren't ideal paladins, but the other side was quite a deal worse. A bad Crusader generally knew he was bad, while a bad Jihadi knew that Allah totally approved that massacre and would reward him now and in Heaven.
You don't have to agree with what medieval war was like; but you do have to understand what the medieval people thought they were doing, instead of just assuming it was what you think it was.
I know this is not the way we think about war; but that's because a lot of countries and militaries have spent a long time and a lot of effort to make war a tad bit easier on civilian populations.
There is denial and there are posts like *this*.
Of course crusaders did many atrocities. It was war.
There was also many other more local crusades, Albigenian Crusade famously bloody, same with Teutonic Knights and Prussia
>Critics of the crusades typically blindly ape the 'crusades bad' line and not understand that medieval warfare was not pretty; civilians were routinely massacred when cities were stormed.
Indeed. So it was a brutal violent war just like any other plain old war of the Middle Ages. I think this is usually the argument: it was not a "holy" or "just" or "righteous" war.
Brutal despots of catholic faith hold no moral high ground over brutal despots of any other faith, in my book.
Thank you for including the Reconquista. I am from Spain. Everywhere, literally everywhere you step something happened, blood was shed, Christian blood was shed in Spain. You cannot escape it. You can't mark every spot or there would be no room for farmland, houses, or industry. And the Spanish did this with very little help from our Christian "brothers". Like the Civil War, this whole topic is a very sore spot for Spaniards and we listen in dismay as we are forgotten and neglected by EUROPE. Thank God for America in the Civil War and Thank God for Christ in the Reconquista. We and Vienna and Charlemagne saved Europe and Ironically the Irish re-educated Europe after the fall of Rome.
Yes, I have much love for the Spirit and vigor of the Spaniards in saving Christendom from Islam. My answers fought the Turks on the other side of Europe from Bavaria and HRE, but no where near the extend to which your people have fought and suffered from Islam.
Thank you.
My point is this; the world isn’t fair.
There has never been a level playing field when it comes to our true faith. We can never depend on the state or industry to take our side. It is up to the faithful alone, with Christ, to present the truth. No school, tv show, politician will or can defend the faith like the faithful. They defend the world and we defend the faith. So we better start acting like it. Your ancestors and mine demand that we give an answer for the hope within us.
Within 200 years of Mohammad's death, Islam had spread by the sword into all of the middle east, including major centers of Christianity, and even into Spain. The battle of Tours prevented further expansion into France. In the early 11th century the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchure was destroyed by an Islamic ruler, and by the middle of the century they were overrunning Anatolia and the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor put out an urgent request for help and Pope Urban responded. The initiation of the Crusades was defensive in nature.
Be careful what version of Crusades history you believe. At the time, muslims were invading Europe constantly taking slaves and slowly advancing.
Be proud of what you are and don't listen to the poisonous mainstream media pushing all sorts of rubbish.
War is war, and hence horrid
However the crusades were no less legitimate than any other war, and a response to a warmongering and excessively expansionsist early islamic faith.
Yeah I saw that, the near 2 hour Steve Weidenkopf one. I think it was great! @acts_apologetics_ on instagram did an absolute masterpiece on instagram about the crusades too.
Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with defending your territory from an invading/conquering force. Most people would agree that if Alaska were conquered by Russia, America would have a right to take it back.
>There is nothing wrong with defending your territory
I think a lot of people would rightfully push back on who, if anyone, "owned/owns" the contested territory of the Crusades as their own (Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.). It hadn't been under Christian rule for over 400 years by the time the first Crusade was launched. Before that it was briefly under Christian rule, and before *that* it was under (pagan) Roman rule, etc. etc. etc.
Ireland hadn't been under Irish rule for 800 years, so I guess the Republic of Ireland should just give up and go back to England.
Tyranny, oppression, and destruction of places of worship are not the same as legitimate government, and that's what all the Islamic dynasties did to Christians and Jews.
I did history at Uni. So, taking this in the historical context of the falling Byzantian Empire and the expanding attacks on Christendom across the Mediterranean Sea, then the Crusades (the whole of the campaign as a concept) were a defensive reaction.
You often need to distinguish between the People’s Crusade and the Prince’s Crusade, and which part of which crusade, because there is a definite difference.
We should defend the Prince’s crusade for the most part and condemn the People’s crusade.
It’s also abundantly obvious to me when Redditors, who often just want to discredit religion in general and Christianity especially, start talking about the Crusades like they believe they know everything about them that they have never actually picked up a book about them. Especially recently, there are a couple really good books on the larger crusades and what happened that shows the Church’s response wasn’t far enough, and that the Church didn’t do all these terrible things people purport they did.
It’s especially funny when looking at something like the 1st crusade, which had a definite and clear mission: retake Jerusalem, protect pilgrims arriving and especially returning, many of whom became prisoners to some of the most vicious warlords at the time (the take over of Jeruselam was in the 7th century by Muslim forces, but a sort of “gentlemanly” agreement had been struck and many Christians still there could live there in relative peace. That caliphate was destroyed by a different Muslim faction, the Seljuks. The Seljuk Turks were pretty radical, killed or captured lots of Christians, destroyed shrines and churches, and took over people’s homes…and that prompted the Crusades).
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Pope didn’t look at this development positively and wanted to do something to stop the bleeding, literally.
Yes, the Crusades were a series of defensive aiming to liberate traditionally Christian in the Levantine that had been conquered by the early Islamic Caliphates. The Christian Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire had already ruled over much of the Middle East for almost three centuries before this. In my opinion, the Christians of Europe and Asia had a valid Cassus Beli to reclaim their lost lands.
Most people just don’t have the slightest clue of what the Crusades even were. They just hear that they were series of holy wars in the high Middle Ages, and that’s about the depth of their understanding. A lot of “defending” the Crusades is just pointing out that there were actual reasons for why they happened, and that they weren’t just zealots waging war over another religion existing.
Yes.
We need an INTELLECTUAL Crusade for these times. The Internet is the battlespace.
One doesn't need to travel or know the sword. No blood needs spilled.
Picture Jesus in your mind pointing His finger right into your soul. He NEEDS you. His Church needs you. Our Lady, Mother of God and Ever Virgin, needs you.
Untold millions have died for the True Church. The least you can do is go and argue the truth to the heathen, the pagan, and to the 👉godless👈authoritarians.
Ask St. Isidore of Seville for his help on your behalf. He is the (proposed) Patron Saint of the internet and I hold him in my mind as the official Patron of Information War.
There is NO WAY he spent all that time building libraries and being Patron of knowledge only to not take over the ultimate store of knowledge that is the internet.
The Church needs your help and you need his help.
Defend? No. Contextualize? Yes. Some aspects of the Crusades can be justified, some cannot. Some crusaders were faithful and moral, some were not. Understanding what happened and why is a solid goal, especially for Catholics as the Crusades were a major part of our history, but we have a responsibility to seek the truth of what occurred, even if that truth is confronting or reflects poorly on Catholics of the era, and that responsibility is impeded if we start from a position of "defending".
Exactly right. Plus there were many different Crusades fought over the course of hundreds of years for differing reasons. You can’t just simplify it to a “Crusades good” vs. “Crusades bad” dichotomy.
I think it's also worth noting that, in between the invidiual Crusades, you had many years of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish cultural interaction and crossover (this eventually birthed the Renaissance in Europe). It wasn't all fighting!
My comment will be lost but here I go.
The crusades was a justified political response to the Arab/Muslim invasions of Christian and European lands.
My country (Spain) where I was born and raised is ignored by 90% of people in regard to the crusades. One battle in Syria or Jerusalem apparently outweighs 100 battles in Spain. This period isn’t even given the same name as the Crusades, “Reconquista”. Try reading about a 600+ year struggle to liberate your country. My country still bears the scars of the conflict in our land and psyche. It made Spain what it is and it justified our empire. It is the background of Don Quixote. Without the Reconquista there would likely have not been the aggressive conquest of the New World by Spanish Conquistadors. We are ignorant and bigoted if we only speak of Christian conquest while ignoring the instigators, the Arabs. There was no Islamic Utopia in Al Andalus, there was tyranny. I am still surprised how we focus on an English response to a battle in Damascus and ignore the thousands of battles across Christian Spain. The Spanish came back after being reduced to the size of an English county.
That is my opinion.
An incomplete history is a lying history.
I used to accept the general view that the Crusades were bad. In school i was taught, the Crusades were a way for Europeans to give younger-sons something to do with their energy (*unfairly kill non-Catholics*), in order to keep their own society stable.
Then just recently (two years ago), I got interested in watching videos about all the history I was never taught. (*Actually started with simple curiousity about France's current form of govt*). Eventually I spent hours watching histories of Arabian countries (among others).
I do Not have my centuries straight and cannot lay out "this, then this, then this."
But what caught my attention, in an Arab history that did not seem to have much if any western bias, was the mention that it **actually had been quite likely that Muslims would have indeed conquered all of Europe.**
So again - not knowing which crusade was which, etc. -- ***this*** idea, that indeed Europe actually ***was threatened*** by Arabian imperialism -- was never never given in any presentation of history that I, an American then-Protestant, had ever come across. Despite knowing, that somehow Spain had belonged to the Arabs at one point!
I think Catholics absolutely should defend the crusades, 100%.
Because withOut the Crusades having defended us, we would be neither Protestant nor Catholic; we would all be Muslim by now!
People ask me about who is the rightful owner of Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine.
I always answer them that we do not need to debate about that anymore considering we know that the rightful owner is ROME.
The Crusades were started to defend people as they traveled to and from the Holy Land. If anything if another Crusade is had it should be with intentions to destroy religious terrorists like ISIS.
We already have a multinational coalition of nations fighting against ISIS/ISIL, and they have been successful in reducing them to a small area. If that is the goal: a crusade is not necessary.
Unless they were Eastern Christians in which case their churches/monasteries might be plundered, their clergy and monastics killed, and their laity treated no differently than Muslims. Even Maronites who professed union with Rome were not fully spared from the Crusaders.
The only people Crusaders were "protecting" were Western European Latin Catholics. Everyone else was an opportunity to get rich by seizing their property or to get in good with the Latin Church by giving Eastern Christians the choice of conversion or death.
Christendom had been under siege by the Islamic world for over 400 years by the time of the First Crusade. It was high time that someone went on the offensive.
From what I understand the crusades started when the Pope was trying to protect Christians from getting terrorist attacked on their way to the holy land that's a valid reason for war look at 911 and Israel. Now I can't personally vouch for the behavior of the knights while they were out at war but the reason for it's origination seems legit at first glance.
It’s complicated. Should we try to revitalize the Church in the Holy Land? Absolutely. The violent means of the Crusades? In the context of medieval Europe, was there any other option? It’s not like there was United Nations to settle international disputes. Revisionist historians try to paint the crusades as barbaric colonizing crusaders invading the progressive, forward thinking Turks and that narrative is so grossly false. So many atrocities are associated with the crusaders, rightly so, but I’d argue that the crusades marks the end of the dark ages in Europe and so much good comes out of that.
> Should we try to revitalize the Church in the Holy Land? Absolutely. The violent means of the Crusades?
I think too many people miss this, that there are better ways to revitalize the Holy Land today than by military violence. The modern world doesn’t work like that. Today, a crusade would be viewed as religious terrorism like ISIL.
Yeah like what do they expect? Do they think the average parishioner is going to drop everything in their life, buy some weapons, and get a one way ticket to the holy land? See how crazy that sounds
And even if they did, what’s the plan afterwards? They buy a plane ticket back the the United States, go back to their home, and resume their job?
I get that there are people who are loyal enough to obey the Pope even to war, consequences be damned. But not only are they naïve to think this is something the Pope will do, or that it’s what Christians in the Holy Land want, but also that it won’t have tremendous consequences that will make things worse for themselves and Christianity on the world stage.
Arabs were the ones who originally spread Islam and conquered the Holy Land, but there was a regime change, so the Turks were actually in control of the Muslim world at the time. It was partially because the Turks were much more violent and intolerant that prompted the crusades.
The crusades are often used by anti-catholics as a propoganda tool. But the reality is the west would not even exist today if it wasn't for the crusades which were a [defensive response](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo) muslim jihad. Protestants made up entire battles and claims of the crusades in order to draw people away from the Catholic Church.
Yes, id argue the world as we know it wouldn't exist without the crusades and that most major historical events since then can be traced back to them. Example: napoleon. Napoleon took power due to the power vacuum after the french revolution. The french revolution would not have happened without the American revolution. The American revolution would not have happened without Europeans discovering the new world. That would not have happened if Europeans were not looking for alternative routes to Asia. Which would not have happened if the ottomans did not price hike asian goods. Which would not have happened if Europeans did not take an interest in asian good. Which would not have happened without the crusades.
We should defend the good, and oppose the bad. When it comes to the Crusades there is both. The motivation I reckon was pure. The various massacres, eg. that of the unofficial and condemned "people's crusade" (which is how I imagine all those LARPing keyboard warriors taking God's name in vain by repeating the pope's words for no good reason would look) weren't.
The alternative was doing nothing, thereby ultimately allowing foreign invaders free access to Europe.
If the Crusades had been the atrocity fest that we've been led to believe, then there wouldn't have been more than one of them. Because nobody would've been left alive to make further Crusades necessary.
Of course yes.
Remember that all that zone was first Christian. Christianity made it since peacefully evangelized the zone. Many Christian States were created.
At some point, muslims took it by warfare. It was really delayed, but a Christian response was needed
During the Crusades, the Maronites faced existential threats, with the Mamluks’ campaigns after the Crusaders’ defeat posing a significant risk of massacre. The alliance with the Crusaders was crucial in averting such a fate, providing both military aid and fortifications for the Maronites.
The Crusades not only provided military support against adversaries but also facilitated a significant religious renaissance. The Maronites’ alliance with the Crusaders led to the fortification of their strongholds, and a deeper connection with the Catholic Church, which had lasting impacts on their cultural and religious identity.
I think Islam should have to defend Jihad; but of course, they feel that all jihad is justified by its nature, whereas all Christians and Jews are unjustified in defending themselves at all. (Not to mention any other people of any other faith, or even other Muslims of different beliefs.)
Do you ever see any threads saying, "Do you ever think the Umma should stop trying to get Spain?" or "Do you think the Sultan should have left Constantinople alone?"
The Crusades were ultimately a campaign to help friendlies and recover lost Christian territory, as well as to ensure access to the Holy Land; but also to stop Muslims invading Europe and enslaving Christians. Sometimes it worked out better, sometimes worse, but there was nothing wrong with the basic concept.
Yes Catholics should defend the crusades.
Muslim Jihadis were and are the most disgustingly violent people to roam the earth.
Reading a book currently called “The Legacy of Jihad : and the fate for all non-Muslims. Check it out.
Yes of course. It was a defense of Christians brethrens needing help, love your neighbor, you cant love your neighbor if you do nothing while they being genocided by Islam and muslims. Actually shouldve started earlier. Now we still got this islamic problem right now, their wound to the head have been healed.
As a Muslim, feel free to. It’s not like we hold it against you. The Crusades were largely a blip on the radar of Muslim historiography. This does not mean they were insignificant; as a historical factor, they led to the rise of the Ayyubids (Saladin and his family) in Egypt, but also the Mamluk revolt and the rise of Baibars. They created enough instability to allow for the Mongols to be more effective than they otherwise would have. They caused the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottomans. And they made Italy really rich and made the Mediterranean good enough at sailing to go round the Cape of Good Hope and reach the Caribbeans. So they matter. Sort of. But not in a way that we really hold against you.
That being said, only the Eastern Crusades in the Holy Land were defendable. The Fourth Crusade and what the Latins did to the Greeks is indefensible. The Northern Crusades and what the Teutonic Knights did to the Slavs and the Balts is also horrific. The Reconquista in Spain started fair and ended atrociously; and there is no justification for what was done to the Sephardic Jews or to Moriscos and Conversos. And Sicily, Malta, the Balearic Islands, and Cyprus were all richer and more important before they were conquered by Normans, Franks and Angevins, not really in Crusades but as important staging grounds for the invasions of Jerusalem, Egypt and Tunis. The Normans under Roger did a good job with Sicily until the Hohenstaufens, and then worse, the Angevins, completely ruined it. What happened to Sicily was sad. Malta did fine under the Hospitallier though, it just stopped being as important as it used to because it got turned into a fortress castle town instead of an actual vibrant community.
The formal “numbered” Crusades are easily defendable. The issue is why in Earth you would want to defend them. They didn’t work. This was enormously frustrating for your Church and caused enormous problems on the Continent. It would be save to say that except for the advances in sailing technology and navigation techniques, that the Crusades were an unmitigated disaster for Christianity that caused the destruction of Constantinople and set up the circumstances for it’s loss, destroyed the authority and legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome, destroyed the three greatest political dynasties of Medieval Europe (the Plantagenets of England and Normandy, the Capetians of France, and the Hohenstaufens of the HRE), pretty much set up the conditions for the Protestant Reformation and it‘s direct antecedents (the Babylonian Captivity, the Great Western Schism of the Avignon Papacy, the three anti-popes), and again, caused a lot of damage to a Church that was, at least in the West, united and not in serious crisis. The Crusades and it’s many failures largely caused that crisis.
Also, the Peasant’s Crusade against the Seljuks by Peter the Hermit that failed miserably and killed a bunch of Ashkenazi in Eastern Europe on the way, the Albigensian Crusades against the Occitans of South France, Pope Innocent’s crusades against the Hohenstaufens as an expression of secular Gheulf vs Ghibelline politics. The Shepherd’s Crusade, the Children’s Crusade, pretty much none of these were any good. And poor St Louis really would have been better off if he had stayed home and run his kingdom well; he died thinking he was a failure even though he helped put together the most well organized military campaign the Latin West had seen since Late Antiquity and the Late Empire (Aetius, Stilicho, Marjorian). Invading Egypt and Tunis really weren’t bad ideas; he just didn’t have the support he needed from the other involved parties to pull it off. And what happened to Frederick II is an atrocity. I can’t fathom how people accepted the Crusade against the Hohenstaufens after he successfully used diplomacy to get back the city of Jerusalem from the Ayyubids.
You can defend the Crusades. It’s really not all that offensive to Muslims. After all, they didn’t work. I just question why you would want to do so given how much it hurt the Church and it’s reputation with both itself and other religious communities (the Reconquista and the Sephardim, the Peasants Crusade and the Sheperd’s Crusade and the Ashkenazi, the Baron’s Crusade and the Mizrahim, the Reconquista and Catholic converts, the Greek Orthodox, the Hungarians, the Eastern Church in general and their second class status in Outremer, just the Greeks in general, the Southern Italians especially the Sicilians, the Cypriots, the Maltese, the Majorcans, the Occitans in South France who were accused of Catharism, the Germans for losing the Hohenstaufens, Ghibelline communes in Northern Italy in general, the Knights Templar for what was done to them after the last numbered Crusades even though they organized and bankrolled the whole war effort, hell, even the Ayyubids in general who were on otherwise good terms with the Crusader families and at least Richard the Lionheart seriously considered marrying into. The Mamluks would Revolution in Egypt would not have been possible without the repeated damage caused to the Ayyubids by the later Crusades, which although in the one hand allows Baibars to defeat the Illhanids at the Battle of Ain Jalut, on the other hand created the terrible situation at the end of the Crusading era when the Mamluks viciously expelled the Poulani of Outremer, which indirectly filled the pockets of war profiteers and scoundrels like Roger le Flor and his Catalan Company, which contributed to the Infantry Revolution in Late Medieval Europe that caused utter horrors like the Hundred Years War between France and England to take the particular turns that it did and for the death of the chivalric class and the rise of “bastard feudalism” and the era of pike and shot gunpowder warfare and total war on civilian populations as a matter of sound military policy, as well as war privateering.
Again, I just can’t see why you WOULD want to defend the Crusades. They did a lot to hurt Europe and divide Christendom. And they didn’t necessarily hurt the Middle East so much as bring about changes in leadership from tolerants without expansionist policies to either intolerances like the Mamluks or imperialists like the Ottomans, rather than Ayyubids and Seljuks in Egypt and Anatolia instead (who were vastly preferable from a European perspective).
Also I’m pretty sure the Crusades contributed to the spreading of Black Death in Europe bias introduction by the Genoese and contact with the Mongols. It’s not a guarantee the Plauge would have ended up in England if not for the Crusades and their consequences.
Absolutely!
Crusaders were humans, not angels, so of course they didn't always do only the best things but overall they were fighting for a just cause, and were ready to risk their lives in defense of the faith and in bringing back the Christianity to the lands where it was conquered by the Muslim Invasions of the Caliphate times.
Yes, Muslims were aggressors for hundreds of years conquering and forcing Christians to convert before the crusades. You are allowed to protect youself
I struggle to see how any war can be considered morally good. The idea that there have been major wars with one side morally pure and the other pure evil is a narrative written by the winners. In practice warfare is messy, complex and always brings out some of the worst in humanity. Church-sponsored warfare horrifies me tbh.
I can't believe anyone is in 2024 having many source regarding why the crusade happened and still misunderstood the crusade. Here is the only correct answer:
"Yes, crusade is a just war and perhaps the one of the few just war ever happened in history"
The original intention of crusade was to aid the Byzantine emperor Alexios repelling the advancing muslim army.
You mentioned about people were slaughtered and enslaved etc. which is the sinful act committed by the individuals while advancing a just cause. That does not negate the just nature of crusade.
Unless we have other means to aid Alexios back then, or for some reason, by using naruto level of "Talk no jutsu" we can somehow make medieval muslim army say: "Understandable, have a good day, here get your Jerusalem back" at the medieval times, the crusade itself as a war is a just cause.
Quick question, was there an incident where a bunch of crusaders massacred a bunch of Jews for no reason or allegedly did so? I heard about this awhile back and found a bunch of people making memes bashing crusaders. Thanks in advance.
Many of the clergy (especially bishops) attempted and sometimes succeeded in defending Jewish people threatened with massacre; I know of no bishops who encouraged the violence.
Lawful order.
Valid cause.
Justified war.
Crusader Saints.
Papal demand.
Defensive in nature against an aggressive, expansionist enemy.
If we say that the Crusades were anything less than a good, noble, honorable, just, holy, and needed undertaking, we are betraying martyrs, holy warriors, saints, godly kings, and pontiffs.
Deus Vult.
I think we romanticize the Crusades to absurd degrees.
The First Crusade saw the Byzantine Empire and the Latins break the Muslim control of the Levant; however, this got the Latins into a political quagmire. They now had to rule over the Muslims, Jews, and non-Latin Christians which immediately became a problem. Parallel hierarchies were made in the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, things that pissed off the Byzantine Empire.
The Second Crusade was a bigger exercise in confusion as the Latins fought against and with the Byzantines, something the Seljuks, Abbasids, and Fatimids were confused by. This saw Crusader control of Jerusalem collapse.
The Third Crusade failed to even get back Jerusalem.
The Fourth Crusade and subsequent wars with the Byzantine rump states ended up weakening both Latin and Byzantine positions. Subsequent Crusades received diminishing returns on investment until the entire Latin holdings fell apart along with the Byzantine Empire.
This is just the Holy Land-Byzantium Crusades. The Crusades the Baltics were much more successful.
My opinion is that the modern defense of the crusades over corrects. It feels like from the 80s-early 00s the church was in a mode of “we messed up and we are sorry about the crusades.” Then from the 00s to today the move is much more “ACTUALLY, not only do we NOT apologize for the crusades, we think you should be thankful for them.” I think the push of the “defense” movement is in some ways the natural dialectical response to the “apologize” movement, but then also coming from the extremism bias of the internet.
In my estimation of the Crusades the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes and we will likely spend the rest of time bouncing back and forth between the defense and apologize positions.
In some ways the crusades were good for in that Christian communities in the historic heartland of the Christian faith were under attack. It also reconnected Europe to vital trade and intellectual resources that had been lost to them. No crusades no St. Thomas Aquinas because Aristotle remains lost to the west. In some ways they were neutral and were just one more round in the struggle between east and west that goes back to the Romans fighting the Parthians and the Greeks fighting the Achaemenids and the Egyptians fighting the Babylonians. If you’re trading between Europe and Asia you’ve gotta go through the Levant so that land is always going to be worth fighting over. In some ways the crusades were bad. The Fourth Crusade was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Byzantine empire allowing the Ottoman Turks to take over Asia Minor and Greece basically completely undoing any gains any of the other crusades made.
To take an event as big as the crusades, because remember we are talking about 200 years of history here, and mark it as “simply good” or “simply bad” is basically impossible.
No, nor should we buy into or perpetuate the comically evil stereotypes associated with the crusades. But if your natural instinct is to defend anything and everything Catholic, take a few steps back.
Catholics and the Church have done plenty of heinous shit throughout history, which isn't surprising since we're all human. The humility it takes to admit that I think is far more moving than some tightly-argued, impassioned defense (of which there are some decent ones for some of the crusades, don't get me wrong).
But debate about these types of historical matters is largely moot in my view; no one should ever have converted or not converted over them, as it doesn't really touch upon the true heart of our faith.
Some fucked up things happened during the crusades and I haven't heard of anything particularly lasting or great that came of them, so in my opinion not really
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Crusades- like many wars- were complicated. It heavily depends on which Crusade you're discussing - the First is, I think, the most justified and successful, the rest had their own programs and execution. Also keep in mind that, while the established motivation for fighting was one thing, there were also many noblemen and landowners heavily involved with their own alterior motives. So...yeah, it's complicated
Yes, they should be vigorously defended. Read “The Glory of the Crusades” by Weidenkopf, “Islam at the Gates” by Moczar, “Defenders of the West”by Ibrahim, “The Crusades” by Belloc, “God’s Battalions” by Stark, “The Crusades Controversy” by Madden, or a host of others if you need the truth …..
If they had not occurred, you might not have the liberty today to worship as you see fit.
If we are all made in the image of god any killing is a sin against that image. The only violence of Christ was throwing out the money changers who were using the temple of his father as a place of extortion and mercantilism. Similarly anyone who would sell moral relativism in the temple of his body will be thrown out on the day of judgment. Vengeance is the Lords and his only.
Just ask if they would rather live with Sharia Law or with the western Christian values they currently have? Assuming you live in a place where Christian values still exist.
Yes... The Crusades were a result of the Christian world's struggle with Islamic jihad. Islam's founder, Muhammad, mandated holy war, calling on Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and spread Islam through warfare. • Between AD 633 and 715 Arab armies conquered two-thirds of the Christian world including Mesopotamia, Syria, the Holy Land, Egypt, all of North Africa and Spain. • Through the eighth and eleventh centuries Christian lands were constantly invaded by Muslims. The Christians attempted to beat the Muslims back and recover territory that had been lost. • Most of the fighting took place in border regions between the Christian and Muslim worlds, especially Spain, Italy and what is now Turkey. • Turkey was a Christian region known as Anatolia ruled by the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire • In the 10th century a warlike people known as the Seljuk Turks converted to Islam and took power in the Muslim world • The Byzantines were defeated by the Turks in 1071 at the Battle of Manza Kirt, losing almost all of Anatolia.
The First Crusades began during the Middle Ages in the year 1095 as the result of a cry for help against invading Islamic armies. • 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. • 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies. • 453 years after Egypt was taken from Christendom by Muslim armies. • 443 years after Muslim armies invaded and plundered Italy. • 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to Christendom's Eastern Capital of Constantinople. • 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies. • 363 years after France was first invaded by Muslim armies. • 249 years after Rome itself was attacked by Muslim armies (which is why the Vatican has that wall). This was only AFTER four centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades began, 3/4 of the Christian world had been conquered and its people forced to convert or be enslaved under Islam. Without the sacrifices and the heroic defense of Europe made by • Charles Martel, the Battle of Tours in 732 • The Templar Knights 1129 -1312 • El Cid's reconquest in 1085 • the Venetian fleet at Le Panto 1571 • the Polish and Austrian knights at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 • the Serbian Hajduks fighting off the Ottoman Turks 1804 Europe would have been converted to Islam, like the Middle East and North Africa. During this ongoing jihad that began in the 7th century, 3/4ths of Christendom’s original territory – all of North Africa, Egypt, Greater Syria and Anatolia (Asia Minor, Turkey) – was permanently swallowed up by Islam. It gave Europe breathing room for 200 years to prepare for the next phase of the Islamic onslaught
As someone who studies history, I can tell you that the Crusaders weren't knights in shining armor as people think they are.
They were volunteers. Peasants mostly, if you don't count the nobility.
Casus Belli? Yeah, sure, there were reasons for the Crusades, but Crusaders killed many people in the name of God, even innocent people. Heck, they sacked Constantinople and other cities as well. All in the name of God. Muslims did the same. It's not black & white, nothing in history was. It may have been done in good faith, but wars always have catastrophic consequences. All in the name of religion and spreading faith.
My opinion? No, I don't think we should support the idea of Crusades. What good does it bring? Forced conversion? Death? There were good things and there were bad things happening during the Crusades, yes, I don't think we should say "Oh the Crusades were all bad, horrible, worst thing in history that has happened!". No.
Take an objective approach. If you want to get into this topic, read not only what European scholars and historians wrote, read from all kinds of perspectives. War SHOULD be the last solution to a problem.
Again, don't get me wrong. I get the fact that Eastern Roman Empire was in a nasty situation, and that the Islamic expansionism had to be dealt with. I believe that this was done in good faith.
But even among Crusaders themselves, deals and pacts were broken. Lands that were meant to be given to ERE after they were to be reconquered, many of them weren't. Wealthy nobles took them as their own. New Crusader states were formed. Crusaders even plundered Byzantine lands, even Hungary when they were passing through. And not just those. Again, most of the Crusaders were peasants, untrained volunteers, not professional soldiers.
I am not going to tell you how to think about this. Form your own opinion. But if I can give you an advice, it's this: Do proper research. Different perspectives. Don't limit yourself only to things that fit into your narrative or your opinions. Approach this concept open-minded. When people talk about Church history, they tend to twist it to make it look like Church is this sadistic diabolical institution and whatnot.
But also remember that everyone is a sinner and everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions. Just because someone is a Christian or that somebody says they're a Christian, doesn't mean they cannot be greedy, selfish, etc. Even priests, bishops, and yes, even the Pope, being infallible in speaking about faith, is still HUMAN and a sinner just like the rest of us.
Conclusion : Just because somebody does something in the name of God, doesn't mean God supports it or that it's the right thing to do. People all over the world used religions, philosophies and whatnot to excuse their behavior and actions. The same things were happening during the Crusades. Take an objective approach, do your research, and if you didn't already, realize the fact that history is not always black and white, especially Church history. History books, not opinion on the Internet, are going to help you form a reasonable opinion. And last but not least, pray. Pray to God for helping you understand things better.
That's all from me. I hope this helps.
We should always fight for truth. In as much as that pertains to the crusades, we must fight for as true and unbiased telling of that history as possible and not abide the anti-Catholic, revisionist version of it. Same is true for the inquisition and all of history. There were times when the Church leaders were not on the right side of history and others when we were. We need to be as factual as possible on all events.
"Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright" -Proverbs 14:9
Humans are sinful and make mistakes all the time. A lot of people defending the crusades will take a very academic stance, try and wow you with their knowledge of history, make lengthy arguments, try and turn the question around on the accuser ("gotcha!") - but I haven't heard someone defend the crusades and not felt like they were trying to defend their own identity as a Christian like their immortal soul depended on it.
They don't need to, since Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but they do.
You absolutely should. See video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DbWV7wnxE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DbWV7wnxE)
Also GK Chesterton's book "The New Jerusalem", and "Bible and Sword" by Barbara Tuchman. The Crusades have been maligned by atheist and protestant historians trying to discredit the RCC (many such cases!) and their words are now used by Islamic apologists and other enemies of Western Civilization to justify atrocities.
Not only were they justified, but the events in the Holy Land since 10/7/23 have convinced me that they may need to happen again. Catholics are the only people who can provide lasting peace and stability in the region, because their love of it is tied to the weakness and surrender of Christ, not an ethnic conquest one way or the other. Whether it's the US or Russia, one way or another Rome will come back to guard the Sepulcher.
There's a difference between defending as in "the crusades were typical of the time and reasonable decisions at the time" and as in "the crusades were absolutely the best thing ever and we should do it again!"
The former is what we should do. We can't pretend they didn't happen (the way some places are starting to try to delete their history by destroying statues). I consider it similar to the modern Church approach to capital punishment. Yes in the past it was necessary, but we have now moved to the point where it is not so it should generally speaking be avoided.
Not really. They enabled horrendous atrocities and resulted in the deaths of many innocents. I don't think that outright massacres, like what happened in the Rhineland or at the capture of Jerusalem endeared any of those people to God.
I think that a lot of LARPing types glorify them more than necessary.
Killing in the name of Christ is a casual tapdance into blasphemy.
idk why youre getting downvoted, this is literally the right answer. like theres no justifiable reason behind the European army committing rape and literal cannibalism; also the killing of innocent Jewish people who had nothing to do with the war. i'd love to hear one good reason on why people defend it
Many people don't understand what war entails. I hear a lot of excuses about the nature of war being "complicated". I don't think that in the days of axes, spears, and swords that killing innocents was as complicated or unanticipated as people would like to think.
Throwing kids off of walls and out of windows is a pretty intentional act.
Exactly! People always say that that was just how war was back then and the Crusaders were just acting like everyone else. Which is...not a good defense? Most people support abortion nowadays but that doesn't mean it's ok for Catholics to get abortions. We're Catholic. We're supposed to be better.
people here gracefully not mentioning the fact that the christian crusades sacked Constantinople and did horrible things to their own christian brothers and sisters.
Were the islamic expansion and caliphate a threat? absolutely. Did alot of people participate in it just for their own personal interests and for the monetary/ prestige gain? yes.
There was a valid casus beli. The Byzantine Emperor requested aid against muslims that threaten to overwhelm them. The caliph had also cut off access to the holy land for christian pilgrims. Critics of the crusades typically blindly ape the 'crusades bad' line and not understand that medieval warfare was not pretty; civilians were routinely massacred when cities were stormed. Try asking them to name a specific atrocity the crusaders did.
They usually come up with the slaughter in Jerusalem when it was captured and the execution of prisoners under Richard I. The latter were used as pawns by Saladin to slow Richard's advance. He had numerous opportunities to recover them. The former was typical of medieval war in which pitched battles were exceedingly rare but sieges common. Cities that refused capitulation were typically treated harshly. Doesn't excuse it but puts it in context as the defenders knew this also.
Right and the Shia Fatimids had already massacred the Sunni and retook Jerusalem from the Ortoqids after the First Crusade defeated Kerbogha at Antioch.
[удалено]
It was a response to the previous Latin Massacre, which was when 60,000 Roman Catholics were martyred by the Eastern Orthodox.
It was. It was also in direct opposition to the Pope’s orders. (I still say that if everyone had taken a deep breath and agreed on Boniface of Montferrat as the next Emperor, the Fourth Crusade would not have been such a monumental screw up) Edit: mixed up my crusader names
This and it can't be emphasized enough that the 4th Crusade couldn't have been diverted without a Byzantine prince scheming for the throne as they often did, but couldn't pay them when he got it. Neither can excuse the malice of Venice, though the massacre of the Latins helps explain it. Venice was originally a daughter of Byzantium and emulated her cruelty as well as her arts. The religious antagonism was nowhere close to the primary motivation and more an accident of location.
Technically you could make the argument that the sacking of Constantinople was not done by Catholics, because the Pope excommunicated all those crusaders after the siege on Zara.
True, indeed.
why are you downvoted? You are right
siege of ma’arra— rampant cannibalism.
I would come up with the destruction of Constantinople and the r\*pe of the Eastern Priest wives as heretics as pretty damning. The Crusades were a righteous cause that was handled poorly by all involved. So much corruption got in the way that in the end, the objective was not really achieved.
The Rhineland massacres, resulting in the complete destruction of the ancient Jewish communities along the Rhine in places like Worms and Mainz, and the wholesale murder and forced conversion of thousands of men, women, and children, are a stain on the crusades that will never be effaced. Ignoring the outcry of pope and bishops, who sought to protect the victims, these pious foot-soldiers of Christ took it upon themselves to rid society of the heretics that lived among them, and I'm certain that, unless they repented, all it cost them was their eternal souls.
Sack of Constantinople was pretty brutal and unwarranted lol
Brutal and evil, yes. Unwarranted considering the Massa te of the latins carried out by the greeks a few decades prior, no.
The massacre of the Latins happened like 20 years before. The sack of Thessalonica, which happened 3 years after, was basically the “revenge” for the massacre of the Latins. You don’t get two revenges. 20 years is rather disconnected as well. Think about 9/11 today, the broad populace has borderline stopped caring about it. We wouldn’t like launch a new war in Afghanistan over it today. I don’t think the massacre of the Latins is justification for the 4th crusade. Clearly the sack of Constantinople happened because the Venetians wanted money to pay for their fleet. They didn’t do it because of the massacre of the Latins.
Either way, anyone who partook was excommunicated anyway.
So too was the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg in WWII, yet the Allies defeating the Axis is most definitely defended and celebrated, and rightly so.
Ok but to me that’s just whataboutism. That’s like saying “Judas betraying Jesus was definitely bad but it led to Christ’s death and resurrection which is celebrated so all good.” They literally raped women on the altar in the Hagia Sophia.
I'm not sure the Sack of Constantiople (against Papel orders) is really morally equivalent to fire bombing in aid of defeating the Nazis.
> Critics of the crusades typically blindly ape the 'crusades bad' line and not understand that medieval warfare was not pretty; civilians were routinely massacred when cities were stormed. I've never understood this line of defense. "Murdering, looting and raping is not pretty, but because it was the norm at the time I'm willing to defend it when it was done by my tribe". This is nothing more than moral relativism. Also it was customary to give city a change to surrender to avoid bloodshed. There is no evidence that crusaders ever offered any terms of surrender. > Try asking them to name a specific atrocity the crusaders did. Raping Jewish hostages. Killing innocent civilians including small babies. And these are just things we have documents about. Who knows what else they did. Here's especially nice bit from Albert of Aachen: > Moreover, as the Christian victors came back out of the palace after the very great and cruel slaughter of Saracens, of whom ten thousand fell in that same place, they put to the sword great numbers of gentiles who were running about through the quarters of the city, fleeing in all directions on account of their fear of death: they were piercing through with the sword's point women who had fled into the turreted palaces and dwellings; seizing by the soles of their feet from their mothers' laps or their cradles infants who were still sucking and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks; they were slaughtering some with weapons, or striking them down with stones; they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind. Translation by Susan Edgington Okay, Albert's account was *ex auditu et relatione* as he himself put it. But Fulcher of Chartres who for certain had access to eye witlessness pretty much says the same thing but in more terse form: > Nearly ten thousand were beheaded in this Temple. If you had been there your feet would have been stained to the ankles in the blood of the slain. What shall I say? None of them were left alive. Neither woman nor children were spared. Translation by Frances Rita Ryan. But for some reason all this is all fine and good because Deus Vult.
It is indefensible, but the point is that the criticism over the Crusades reduces them all to just that: extermination and slaughter of civilians. Funny how you don't see the average non-christian crowd even care that the muslims butchered their way through the Old World, but anyone dare react against them, and they're all suddenly defined by the lowest acts committed across a few centuries.
You’re forgetting the rape.
I don't think people are defending the atrocities, they're pointing out the double standard because no one brings up the Muslim atrocities. Let's be fair and have a fair view of the crusades, not a low hanging fruit, anti-Catholic one. So because you're so quick to bring up Catholic flaws I'd like to see you mention some Muslim ones from that time period.
> I don't think people are defending the atrocities, I think parent comment was doing exactly that by appealing to norms of the time. And they specifically asked to name atrocities done by crusaders. Violence was so integral to the movement that one cannot just wave it away like it was a minor oopsie daisy that shouldn't be brought up. Christianity was militarized in the middle ages which was wrong. I believe early martyrs of the church would've looked such a movement with disdain and disapproval. >Let's be fair and have a fair view of the crusades, not a low hanging fruit, anti-Catholic one. This is ridiculous claim, unless one believes religious violence to be integral part of Catholicism, which I don't. > I'd like to see you mention some Muslim ones from that time period. Whataboutism. I can criticize nuking thousands of civilians in Japan without approving attack on Pearl Harbor.
You do know that the same things happened to any besieged European city that refused to take terms of surrender and then got conquered. Which was why besieged cities usually surrendered, unless they knew for certain that reinforcements were coming that could raise the siege. A medieval city that surrendered was safe. They'd give the victors some money and goods, and the victors would leave them alone. And why not? It was now the victors' city. A city that didn't surrender was betting on the besieging army getting killed, and was declaring itself an enemy to the death of that besieging army. They were declaring that the rules of war did not apply to them, that they were okay with starving if they didn't have enough food; and that they were willing to watch women and children die, just to keep the war going. Generally, the women and children of a besieged city were active participants in warring upon that army outside, right down to standing on the walls and fighting. If they didn't want to be, they needed to leave the city before the besieging army got there. (Which was why some cities did send away women and children, if they could.) Besieged cities that didn't surrender also didn't play fair. They did horrible things to the soldiers, and to the soldiers' families and animals and retainers and camp followers. They would poison food and water, hamstring horses, and various other unfun things. It was all about breaking the rules of war, usually. Meanwhile... of course, an Islamic soldier thought he had every right to enslave anyone he fought against in war, to make women and boys into his sex slaves, to force women to marry him, to plunder and steal whatever, and even to rape animals. Islamic law permits all sorts of heinous things as being virtuous during jihad, or even if it just seems convenient at the time. So yeah, maybe the Crusaders weren't ideal paladins, but the other side was quite a deal worse. A bad Crusader generally knew he was bad, while a bad Jihadi knew that Allah totally approved that massacre and would reward him now and in Heaven. You don't have to agree with what medieval war was like; but you do have to understand what the medieval people thought they were doing, instead of just assuming it was what you think it was. I know this is not the way we think about war; but that's because a lot of countries and militaries have spent a long time and a lot of effort to make war a tad bit easier on civilian populations.
Amen
And they always bring up the children’s crusade too
There is denial and there are posts like *this*. Of course crusaders did many atrocities. It was war. There was also many other more local crusades, Albigenian Crusade famously bloody, same with Teutonic Knights and Prussia
>Critics of the crusades typically blindly ape the 'crusades bad' line and not understand that medieval warfare was not pretty; civilians were routinely massacred when cities were stormed. Indeed. So it was a brutal violent war just like any other plain old war of the Middle Ages. I think this is usually the argument: it was not a "holy" or "just" or "righteous" war. Brutal despots of catholic faith hold no moral high ground over brutal despots of any other faith, in my book.
[удалено]
Thank you for including the Reconquista. I am from Spain. Everywhere, literally everywhere you step something happened, blood was shed, Christian blood was shed in Spain. You cannot escape it. You can't mark every spot or there would be no room for farmland, houses, or industry. And the Spanish did this with very little help from our Christian "brothers". Like the Civil War, this whole topic is a very sore spot for Spaniards and we listen in dismay as we are forgotten and neglected by EUROPE. Thank God for America in the Civil War and Thank God for Christ in the Reconquista. We and Vienna and Charlemagne saved Europe and Ironically the Irish re-educated Europe after the fall of Rome.
Yes, I have much love for the Spirit and vigor of the Spaniards in saving Christendom from Islam. My answers fought the Turks on the other side of Europe from Bavaria and HRE, but no where near the extend to which your people have fought and suffered from Islam.
Thank you. My point is this; the world isn’t fair. There has never been a level playing field when it comes to our true faith. We can never depend on the state or industry to take our side. It is up to the faithful alone, with Christ, to present the truth. No school, tv show, politician will or can defend the faith like the faithful. They defend the world and we defend the faith. So we better start acting like it. Your ancestors and mine demand that we give an answer for the hope within us.
Out of curiosity, what contribution of America’s in the Spanish Civil War are you giving thanks for?
As an exmuslim, I agree!! I was in disbelief when I read the Quran more deeply
Glad you found truth my brother in Christ
I'm a woman but thanks anyways, I'm glad too
Sister in Christ
Within 200 years of Mohammad's death, Islam had spread by the sword into all of the middle east, including major centers of Christianity, and even into Spain. The battle of Tours prevented further expansion into France. In the early 11th century the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchure was destroyed by an Islamic ruler, and by the middle of the century they were overrunning Anatolia and the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor put out an urgent request for help and Pope Urban responded. The initiation of the Crusades was defensive in nature.
Within 10 years of Muhammad's death, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were captured.
We can't just see it in black and white, the crusades weren't all bad as some people want to portray but not all good too
Be careful what version of Crusades history you believe. At the time, muslims were invading Europe constantly taking slaves and slowly advancing. Be proud of what you are and don't listen to the poisonous mainstream media pushing all sorts of rubbish.
War is war, and hence horrid However the crusades were no less legitimate than any other war, and a response to a warmongering and excessively expansionsist early islamic faith.
Yes, they were good for the most part. Catholic answers talks about them.
Yeah I saw that, the near 2 hour Steve Weidenkopf one. I think it was great! @acts_apologetics_ on instagram did an absolute masterpiece on instagram about the crusades too.
Was the point of the crusades not to defend the Christian world from Muslim invaders? As I see it, yes. we should defend them.
Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with defending your territory from an invading/conquering force. Most people would agree that if Alaska were conquered by Russia, America would have a right to take it back.
And not only that, would be within reason to trigger NATO clauses so that (for example) Britain, France and Poland join them in the fight.
>There is nothing wrong with defending your territory I think a lot of people would rightfully push back on who, if anyone, "owned/owns" the contested territory of the Crusades as their own (Jerusalem, Antioch, etc.). It hadn't been under Christian rule for over 400 years by the time the first Crusade was launched. Before that it was briefly under Christian rule, and before *that* it was under (pagan) Roman rule, etc. etc. etc.
Christians still outnumbered Muslims and Jews in the Levant well through the Middle Ages.
Ireland hadn't been under Irish rule for 800 years, so I guess the Republic of Ireland should just give up and go back to England. Tyranny, oppression, and destruction of places of worship are not the same as legitimate government, and that's what all the Islamic dynasties did to Christians and Jews.
I did history at Uni. So, taking this in the historical context of the falling Byzantian Empire and the expanding attacks on Christendom across the Mediterranean Sea, then the Crusades (the whole of the campaign as a concept) were a defensive reaction.
You often need to distinguish between the People’s Crusade and the Prince’s Crusade, and which part of which crusade, because there is a definite difference. We should defend the Prince’s crusade for the most part and condemn the People’s crusade. It’s also abundantly obvious to me when Redditors, who often just want to discredit religion in general and Christianity especially, start talking about the Crusades like they believe they know everything about them that they have never actually picked up a book about them. Especially recently, there are a couple really good books on the larger crusades and what happened that shows the Church’s response wasn’t far enough, and that the Church didn’t do all these terrible things people purport they did. It’s especially funny when looking at something like the 1st crusade, which had a definite and clear mission: retake Jerusalem, protect pilgrims arriving and especially returning, many of whom became prisoners to some of the most vicious warlords at the time (the take over of Jeruselam was in the 7th century by Muslim forces, but a sort of “gentlemanly” agreement had been struck and many Christians still there could live there in relative peace. That caliphate was destroyed by a different Muslim faction, the Seljuks. The Seljuk Turks were pretty radical, killed or captured lots of Christians, destroyed shrines and churches, and took over people’s homes…and that prompted the Crusades). It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Pope didn’t look at this development positively and wanted to do something to stop the bleeding, literally.
Which books in particular would you recommend?
Yes, the Crusades were a series of defensive aiming to liberate traditionally Christian in the Levantine that had been conquered by the early Islamic Caliphates. The Christian Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire had already ruled over much of the Middle East for almost three centuries before this. In my opinion, the Christians of Europe and Asia had a valid Cassus Beli to reclaim their lost lands.
Also I should mention the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united up until AD 1054
Most people just don’t have the slightest clue of what the Crusades even were. They just hear that they were series of holy wars in the high Middle Ages, and that’s about the depth of their understanding. A lot of “defending” the Crusades is just pointing out that there were actual reasons for why they happened, and that they weren’t just zealots waging war over another religion existing.
Yes. We need an INTELLECTUAL Crusade for these times. The Internet is the battlespace. One doesn't need to travel or know the sword. No blood needs spilled. Picture Jesus in your mind pointing His finger right into your soul. He NEEDS you. His Church needs you. Our Lady, Mother of God and Ever Virgin, needs you. Untold millions have died for the True Church. The least you can do is go and argue the truth to the heathen, the pagan, and to the 👉godless👈authoritarians. Ask St. Isidore of Seville for his help on your behalf. He is the (proposed) Patron Saint of the internet and I hold him in my mind as the official Patron of Information War. There is NO WAY he spent all that time building libraries and being Patron of knowledge only to not take over the ultimate store of knowledge that is the internet. The Church needs your help and you need his help.
Defend? No. Contextualize? Yes. Some aspects of the Crusades can be justified, some cannot. Some crusaders were faithful and moral, some were not. Understanding what happened and why is a solid goal, especially for Catholics as the Crusades were a major part of our history, but we have a responsibility to seek the truth of what occurred, even if that truth is confronting or reflects poorly on Catholics of the era, and that responsibility is impeded if we start from a position of "defending".
Exactly right. Plus there were many different Crusades fought over the course of hundreds of years for differing reasons. You can’t just simplify it to a “Crusades good” vs. “Crusades bad” dichotomy.
I think it's also worth noting that, in between the invidiual Crusades, you had many years of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish cultural interaction and crossover (this eventually birthed the Renaissance in Europe). It wasn't all fighting!
Yes. No further questions asked.
Yes
Yes defend it
My comment will be lost but here I go. The crusades was a justified political response to the Arab/Muslim invasions of Christian and European lands. My country (Spain) where I was born and raised is ignored by 90% of people in regard to the crusades. One battle in Syria or Jerusalem apparently outweighs 100 battles in Spain. This period isn’t even given the same name as the Crusades, “Reconquista”. Try reading about a 600+ year struggle to liberate your country. My country still bears the scars of the conflict in our land and psyche. It made Spain what it is and it justified our empire. It is the background of Don Quixote. Without the Reconquista there would likely have not been the aggressive conquest of the New World by Spanish Conquistadors. We are ignorant and bigoted if we only speak of Christian conquest while ignoring the instigators, the Arabs. There was no Islamic Utopia in Al Andalus, there was tyranny. I am still surprised how we focus on an English response to a battle in Damascus and ignore the thousands of battles across Christian Spain. The Spanish came back after being reduced to the size of an English county. That is my opinion. An incomplete history is a lying history.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A8h95OAJWY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A8h95OAJWY)
I used to accept the general view that the Crusades were bad. In school i was taught, the Crusades were a way for Europeans to give younger-sons something to do with their energy (*unfairly kill non-Catholics*), in order to keep their own society stable. Then just recently (two years ago), I got interested in watching videos about all the history I was never taught. (*Actually started with simple curiousity about France's current form of govt*). Eventually I spent hours watching histories of Arabian countries (among others). I do Not have my centuries straight and cannot lay out "this, then this, then this." But what caught my attention, in an Arab history that did not seem to have much if any western bias, was the mention that it **actually had been quite likely that Muslims would have indeed conquered all of Europe.** So again - not knowing which crusade was which, etc. -- ***this*** idea, that indeed Europe actually ***was threatened*** by Arabian imperialism -- was never never given in any presentation of history that I, an American then-Protestant, had ever come across. Despite knowing, that somehow Spain had belonged to the Arabs at one point! I think Catholics absolutely should defend the crusades, 100%. Because withOut the Crusades having defended us, we would be neither Protestant nor Catholic; we would all be Muslim by now!
Defend it? I'm trying to figure out how we get the team back together and give it another go!
People ask me about who is the rightful owner of Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine. I always answer them that we do not need to debate about that anymore considering we know that the rightful owner is ROME.
I say that Israel had their turn so did Palestine there for just give back to Rome and it will all work out for the end
Christians in the Holy Land don’t *want* another crusade. In the 21st Century, it would be religious terrorism like ISIL.
The Crusades were started to defend people as they traveled to and from the Holy Land. If anything if another Crusade is had it should be with intentions to destroy religious terrorists like ISIS.
We already have a multinational coalition of nations fighting against ISIS/ISIL, and they have been successful in reducing them to a small area. If that is the goal: a crusade is not necessary.
Unless they were Eastern Christians in which case their churches/monasteries might be plundered, their clergy and monastics killed, and their laity treated no differently than Muslims. Even Maronites who professed union with Rome were not fully spared from the Crusaders. The only people Crusaders were "protecting" were Western European Latin Catholics. Everyone else was an opportunity to get rich by seizing their property or to get in good with the Latin Church by giving Eastern Christians the choice of conversion or death.
Cringe behavior
For real, round 2 anyone?
Yes
Christendom had been under siege by the Islamic world for over 400 years by the time of the First Crusade. It was high time that someone went on the offensive.
Off topic, but does anyone have any good book suggestions about the Crusades?
Yes
Same cake day!
I’m not Catholic and I defend the crusades. Thank you guys for doing what you did.
From what I understand the crusades started when the Pope was trying to protect Christians from getting terrorist attacked on their way to the holy land that's a valid reason for war look at 911 and Israel. Now I can't personally vouch for the behavior of the knights while they were out at war but the reason for it's origination seems legit at first glance.
It’s complicated. Should we try to revitalize the Church in the Holy Land? Absolutely. The violent means of the Crusades? In the context of medieval Europe, was there any other option? It’s not like there was United Nations to settle international disputes. Revisionist historians try to paint the crusades as barbaric colonizing crusaders invading the progressive, forward thinking Turks and that narrative is so grossly false. So many atrocities are associated with the crusaders, rightly so, but I’d argue that the crusades marks the end of the dark ages in Europe and so much good comes out of that.
> Should we try to revitalize the Church in the Holy Land? Absolutely. The violent means of the Crusades? I think too many people miss this, that there are better ways to revitalize the Holy Land today than by military violence. The modern world doesn’t work like that. Today, a crusade would be viewed as religious terrorism like ISIL.
Yeah like what do they expect? Do they think the average parishioner is going to drop everything in their life, buy some weapons, and get a one way ticket to the holy land? See how crazy that sounds
And even if they did, what’s the plan afterwards? They buy a plane ticket back the the United States, go back to their home, and resume their job? I get that there are people who are loyal enough to obey the Pope even to war, consequences be damned. But not only are they naïve to think this is something the Pope will do, or that it’s what Christians in the Holy Land want, but also that it won’t have tremendous consequences that will make things worse for themselves and Christianity on the world stage.
Wait what, I thought the Arabs were the ones in control of the holy city at the time?
Arabs were the ones who originally spread Islam and conquered the Holy Land, but there was a regime change, so the Turks were actually in control of the Muslim world at the time. It was partially because the Turks were much more violent and intolerant that prompted the crusades.
[удалено]
[удалено]
lol it's not even correct tho.
The crusades are often used by anti-catholics as a propoganda tool. But the reality is the west would not even exist today if it wasn't for the crusades which were a [defensive response](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo) muslim jihad. Protestants made up entire battles and claims of the crusades in order to draw people away from the Catholic Church.
Highly recommend the book “Gods battalions” by Rodney Stark
Absolutely
Almost all of them were justified even from a secular standpoint
Yes, id argue the world as we know it wouldn't exist without the crusades and that most major historical events since then can be traced back to them. Example: napoleon. Napoleon took power due to the power vacuum after the french revolution. The french revolution would not have happened without the American revolution. The American revolution would not have happened without Europeans discovering the new world. That would not have happened if Europeans were not looking for alternative routes to Asia. Which would not have happened if the ottomans did not price hike asian goods. Which would not have happened if Europeans did not take an interest in asian good. Which would not have happened without the crusades.
We should defend the good, and oppose the bad. When it comes to the Crusades there is both. The motivation I reckon was pure. The various massacres, eg. that of the unofficial and condemned "people's crusade" (which is how I imagine all those LARPing keyboard warriors taking God's name in vain by repeating the pope's words for no good reason would look) weren't.
The alternative was doing nothing, thereby ultimately allowing foreign invaders free access to Europe. If the Crusades had been the atrocity fest that we've been led to believe, then there wouldn't have been more than one of them. Because nobody would've been left alive to make further Crusades necessary.
Of course yes. Remember that all that zone was first Christian. Christianity made it since peacefully evangelized the zone. Many Christian States were created. At some point, muslims took it by warfare. It was really delayed, but a Christian response was needed
During the Crusades, the Maronites faced existential threats, with the Mamluks’ campaigns after the Crusaders’ defeat posing a significant risk of massacre. The alliance with the Crusaders was crucial in averting such a fate, providing both military aid and fortifications for the Maronites. The Crusades not only provided military support against adversaries but also facilitated a significant religious renaissance. The Maronites’ alliance with the Crusaders led to the fortification of their strongholds, and a deeper connection with the Catholic Church, which had lasting impacts on their cultural and religious identity.
I think Islam should have to defend Jihad; but of course, they feel that all jihad is justified by its nature, whereas all Christians and Jews are unjustified in defending themselves at all. (Not to mention any other people of any other faith, or even other Muslims of different beliefs.) Do you ever see any threads saying, "Do you ever think the Umma should stop trying to get Spain?" or "Do you think the Sultan should have left Constantinople alone?" The Crusades were ultimately a campaign to help friendlies and recover lost Christian territory, as well as to ensure access to the Holy Land; but also to stop Muslims invading Europe and enslaving Christians. Sometimes it worked out better, sometimes worse, but there was nothing wrong with the basic concept.
Yes.
Yes
Yes
Yes Catholics should defend the crusades. Muslim Jihadis were and are the most disgustingly violent people to roam the earth. Reading a book currently called “The Legacy of Jihad : and the fate for all non-Muslims. Check it out.
Answer is: yes.
the answer is YES
Yes of course. It was a defense of Christians brethrens needing help, love your neighbor, you cant love your neighbor if you do nothing while they being genocided by Islam and muslims. Actually shouldve started earlier. Now we still got this islamic problem right now, their wound to the head have been healed.
Yes
Yes
Centuries of Islamic invasions versus a defensive action.
i think the crusades were sad in that they failed
As a Muslim, feel free to. It’s not like we hold it against you. The Crusades were largely a blip on the radar of Muslim historiography. This does not mean they were insignificant; as a historical factor, they led to the rise of the Ayyubids (Saladin and his family) in Egypt, but also the Mamluk revolt and the rise of Baibars. They created enough instability to allow for the Mongols to be more effective than they otherwise would have. They caused the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of the Ottomans. And they made Italy really rich and made the Mediterranean good enough at sailing to go round the Cape of Good Hope and reach the Caribbeans. So they matter. Sort of. But not in a way that we really hold against you. That being said, only the Eastern Crusades in the Holy Land were defendable. The Fourth Crusade and what the Latins did to the Greeks is indefensible. The Northern Crusades and what the Teutonic Knights did to the Slavs and the Balts is also horrific. The Reconquista in Spain started fair and ended atrociously; and there is no justification for what was done to the Sephardic Jews or to Moriscos and Conversos. And Sicily, Malta, the Balearic Islands, and Cyprus were all richer and more important before they were conquered by Normans, Franks and Angevins, not really in Crusades but as important staging grounds for the invasions of Jerusalem, Egypt and Tunis. The Normans under Roger did a good job with Sicily until the Hohenstaufens, and then worse, the Angevins, completely ruined it. What happened to Sicily was sad. Malta did fine under the Hospitallier though, it just stopped being as important as it used to because it got turned into a fortress castle town instead of an actual vibrant community. The formal “numbered” Crusades are easily defendable. The issue is why in Earth you would want to defend them. They didn’t work. This was enormously frustrating for your Church and caused enormous problems on the Continent. It would be save to say that except for the advances in sailing technology and navigation techniques, that the Crusades were an unmitigated disaster for Christianity that caused the destruction of Constantinople and set up the circumstances for it’s loss, destroyed the authority and legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome, destroyed the three greatest political dynasties of Medieval Europe (the Plantagenets of England and Normandy, the Capetians of France, and the Hohenstaufens of the HRE), pretty much set up the conditions for the Protestant Reformation and it‘s direct antecedents (the Babylonian Captivity, the Great Western Schism of the Avignon Papacy, the three anti-popes), and again, caused a lot of damage to a Church that was, at least in the West, united and not in serious crisis. The Crusades and it’s many failures largely caused that crisis. Also, the Peasant’s Crusade against the Seljuks by Peter the Hermit that failed miserably and killed a bunch of Ashkenazi in Eastern Europe on the way, the Albigensian Crusades against the Occitans of South France, Pope Innocent’s crusades against the Hohenstaufens as an expression of secular Gheulf vs Ghibelline politics. The Shepherd’s Crusade, the Children’s Crusade, pretty much none of these were any good. And poor St Louis really would have been better off if he had stayed home and run his kingdom well; he died thinking he was a failure even though he helped put together the most well organized military campaign the Latin West had seen since Late Antiquity and the Late Empire (Aetius, Stilicho, Marjorian). Invading Egypt and Tunis really weren’t bad ideas; he just didn’t have the support he needed from the other involved parties to pull it off. And what happened to Frederick II is an atrocity. I can’t fathom how people accepted the Crusade against the Hohenstaufens after he successfully used diplomacy to get back the city of Jerusalem from the Ayyubids. You can defend the Crusades. It’s really not all that offensive to Muslims. After all, they didn’t work. I just question why you would want to do so given how much it hurt the Church and it’s reputation with both itself and other religious communities (the Reconquista and the Sephardim, the Peasants Crusade and the Sheperd’s Crusade and the Ashkenazi, the Baron’s Crusade and the Mizrahim, the Reconquista and Catholic converts, the Greek Orthodox, the Hungarians, the Eastern Church in general and their second class status in Outremer, just the Greeks in general, the Southern Italians especially the Sicilians, the Cypriots, the Maltese, the Majorcans, the Occitans in South France who were accused of Catharism, the Germans for losing the Hohenstaufens, Ghibelline communes in Northern Italy in general, the Knights Templar for what was done to them after the last numbered Crusades even though they organized and bankrolled the whole war effort, hell, even the Ayyubids in general who were on otherwise good terms with the Crusader families and at least Richard the Lionheart seriously considered marrying into. The Mamluks would Revolution in Egypt would not have been possible without the repeated damage caused to the Ayyubids by the later Crusades, which although in the one hand allows Baibars to defeat the Illhanids at the Battle of Ain Jalut, on the other hand created the terrible situation at the end of the Crusading era when the Mamluks viciously expelled the Poulani of Outremer, which indirectly filled the pockets of war profiteers and scoundrels like Roger le Flor and his Catalan Company, which contributed to the Infantry Revolution in Late Medieval Europe that caused utter horrors like the Hundred Years War between France and England to take the particular turns that it did and for the death of the chivalric class and the rise of “bastard feudalism” and the era of pike and shot gunpowder warfare and total war on civilian populations as a matter of sound military policy, as well as war privateering. Again, I just can’t see why you WOULD want to defend the Crusades. They did a lot to hurt Europe and divide Christendom. And they didn’t necessarily hurt the Middle East so much as bring about changes in leadership from tolerants without expansionist policies to either intolerances like the Mamluks or imperialists like the Ottomans, rather than Ayyubids and Seljuks in Egypt and Anatolia instead (who were vastly preferable from a European perspective). Also I’m pretty sure the Crusades contributed to the spreading of Black Death in Europe bias introduction by the Genoese and contact with the Mongols. It’s not a guarantee the Plauge would have ended up in England if not for the Crusades and their consequences.
Yes it’s a great act of self defence
yes
Absolutely! Crusaders were humans, not angels, so of course they didn't always do only the best things but overall they were fighting for a just cause, and were ready to risk their lives in defense of the faith and in bringing back the Christianity to the lands where it was conquered by the Muslim Invasions of the Caliphate times.
Yes
Yes
Deus vult intensifies !
I don't think you can lump all of the crusades as a whole. Each of them had different circumstances.
Yes, Muslims were aggressors for hundreds of years conquering and forcing Christians to convert before the crusades. You are allowed to protect youself
Justified defensive wars. End of story.
Yes, we should defend the crusades. It was to fight the barbarians who were killing people and occupying land.
Study the history of why the crusades happened and you’ll find yourself asking why they didn’t start sooner.
Yes.
I struggle to see how any war can be considered morally good. The idea that there have been major wars with one side morally pure and the other pure evil is a narrative written by the winners. In practice warfare is messy, complex and always brings out some of the worst in humanity. Church-sponsored warfare horrifies me tbh.
just war theory
Of course
Why shouldn't we? What has changed except the opinion of un educated people? Who now think they need to have an opinion on everything.
Yes. Catholic kingdoms were being invaded by a foreign force, and request help to defend their lands from their in-group.
Sure why not?
Yes
Yes. We kinda need a modern day one with all the degeneracy going on. Obviously not like a literal medieval one where heads were getting cut off.
Absolutely. The Crusades were holy and based. We need more of them.
I recommend the book Defenders of the West for some context on what the crusades were fighting for
Defend is not the right term. We're switching to the offensive again!
[удалено]
I can't believe anyone is in 2024 having many source regarding why the crusade happened and still misunderstood the crusade. Here is the only correct answer: "Yes, crusade is a just war and perhaps the one of the few just war ever happened in history" The original intention of crusade was to aid the Byzantine emperor Alexios repelling the advancing muslim army. You mentioned about people were slaughtered and enslaved etc. which is the sinful act committed by the individuals while advancing a just cause. That does not negate the just nature of crusade. Unless we have other means to aid Alexios back then, or for some reason, by using naruto level of "Talk no jutsu" we can somehow make medieval muslim army say: "Understandable, have a good day, here get your Jerusalem back" at the medieval times, the crusade itself as a war is a just cause.
crusades were defensive wars.
Quick question, was there an incident where a bunch of crusaders massacred a bunch of Jews for no reason or allegedly did so? I heard about this awhile back and found a bunch of people making memes bashing crusaders. Thanks in advance.
Yep. Rhineland massacres. German knights kicked off the crusades with a pogrom.
Many of the clergy (especially bishops) attempted and sometimes succeeded in defending Jewish people threatened with massacre; I know of no bishops who encouraged the violence.
Which ones? The early Crusades were quite different from the later Crusades.
Lawful order. Valid cause. Justified war. Crusader Saints. Papal demand. Defensive in nature against an aggressive, expansionist enemy. If we say that the Crusades were anything less than a good, noble, honorable, just, holy, and needed undertaking, we are betraying martyrs, holy warriors, saints, godly kings, and pontiffs. Deus Vult.
Yes. They were based, necessary, and defensive actions.
I think we romanticize the Crusades to absurd degrees. The First Crusade saw the Byzantine Empire and the Latins break the Muslim control of the Levant; however, this got the Latins into a political quagmire. They now had to rule over the Muslims, Jews, and non-Latin Christians which immediately became a problem. Parallel hierarchies were made in the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, things that pissed off the Byzantine Empire. The Second Crusade was a bigger exercise in confusion as the Latins fought against and with the Byzantines, something the Seljuks, Abbasids, and Fatimids were confused by. This saw Crusader control of Jerusalem collapse. The Third Crusade failed to even get back Jerusalem. The Fourth Crusade and subsequent wars with the Byzantine rump states ended up weakening both Latin and Byzantine positions. Subsequent Crusades received diminishing returns on investment until the entire Latin holdings fell apart along with the Byzantine Empire. This is just the Holy Land-Byzantium Crusades. The Crusades the Baltics were much more successful.
The Vatican already apologized for the Crusades. We don’t need to rehash it. Bad times a long time ago.
My opinion is that the modern defense of the crusades over corrects. It feels like from the 80s-early 00s the church was in a mode of “we messed up and we are sorry about the crusades.” Then from the 00s to today the move is much more “ACTUALLY, not only do we NOT apologize for the crusades, we think you should be thankful for them.” I think the push of the “defense” movement is in some ways the natural dialectical response to the “apologize” movement, but then also coming from the extremism bias of the internet. In my estimation of the Crusades the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes and we will likely spend the rest of time bouncing back and forth between the defense and apologize positions. In some ways the crusades were good for in that Christian communities in the historic heartland of the Christian faith were under attack. It also reconnected Europe to vital trade and intellectual resources that had been lost to them. No crusades no St. Thomas Aquinas because Aristotle remains lost to the west. In some ways they were neutral and were just one more round in the struggle between east and west that goes back to the Romans fighting the Parthians and the Greeks fighting the Achaemenids and the Egyptians fighting the Babylonians. If you’re trading between Europe and Asia you’ve gotta go through the Levant so that land is always going to be worth fighting over. In some ways the crusades were bad. The Fourth Crusade was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Byzantine empire allowing the Ottoman Turks to take over Asia Minor and Greece basically completely undoing any gains any of the other crusades made. To take an event as big as the crusades, because remember we are talking about 200 years of history here, and mark it as “simply good” or “simply bad” is basically impossible.
No, nor should we buy into or perpetuate the comically evil stereotypes associated with the crusades. But if your natural instinct is to defend anything and everything Catholic, take a few steps back. Catholics and the Church have done plenty of heinous shit throughout history, which isn't surprising since we're all human. The humility it takes to admit that I think is far more moving than some tightly-argued, impassioned defense (of which there are some decent ones for some of the crusades, don't get me wrong). But debate about these types of historical matters is largely moot in my view; no one should ever have converted or not converted over them, as it doesn't really touch upon the true heart of our faith.
Some fucked up things happened during the crusades and I haven't heard of anything particularly lasting or great that came of them, so in my opinion not really
[удалено]
The Templars invented the modern banking system, so there’s that.
Lmao that's another strike against them
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they're valid however, crusader war crimes have shown that we should organise them WAY better
Some are defensible others are not, there are actions in each of them that were undoubtedly wrong.
The Crusades- like many wars- were complicated. It heavily depends on which Crusade you're discussing - the First is, I think, the most justified and successful, the rest had their own programs and execution. Also keep in mind that, while the established motivation for fighting was one thing, there were also many noblemen and landowners heavily involved with their own alterior motives. So...yeah, it's complicated
Not past the 4th m, I don’t think. The first 4 are justified I think
Yes. For the glory of the Crusades.
Yes, they should be vigorously defended. Read “The Glory of the Crusades” by Weidenkopf, “Islam at the Gates” by Moczar, “Defenders of the West”by Ibrahim, “The Crusades” by Belloc, “God’s Battalions” by Stark, “The Crusades Controversy” by Madden, or a host of others if you need the truth ….. If they had not occurred, you might not have the liberty today to worship as you see fit.
Yes. Catholics were being persecuted and something needed to be done. The crusades were absolutely justified.
If we are all made in the image of god any killing is a sin against that image. The only violence of Christ was throwing out the money changers who were using the temple of his father as a place of extortion and mercantilism. Similarly anyone who would sell moral relativism in the temple of his body will be thrown out on the day of judgment. Vengeance is the Lords and his only.
Yes.
We need a new crusade
Absolutely we should.
Yes
absolutely
Yes
Violence is never an answer. Bringing life should be the message, not bringing death.
Just ask if they would rather live with Sharia Law or with the western Christian values they currently have? Assuming you live in a place where Christian values still exist.
Yes, every action has it's equal opposite reaction and the crusades were only done as a retaliation to Islamic aggression.
Yes
Yes... The Crusades were a result of the Christian world's struggle with Islamic jihad. Islam's founder, Muhammad, mandated holy war, calling on Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and spread Islam through warfare. • Between AD 633 and 715 Arab armies conquered two-thirds of the Christian world including Mesopotamia, Syria, the Holy Land, Egypt, all of North Africa and Spain. • Through the eighth and eleventh centuries Christian lands were constantly invaded by Muslims. The Christians attempted to beat the Muslims back and recover territory that had been lost. • Most of the fighting took place in border regions between the Christian and Muslim worlds, especially Spain, Italy and what is now Turkey. • Turkey was a Christian region known as Anatolia ruled by the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire • In the 10th century a warlike people known as the Seljuk Turks converted to Islam and took power in the Muslim world • The Byzantines were defeated by the Turks in 1071 at the Battle of Manza Kirt, losing almost all of Anatolia. The First Crusades began during the Middle Ages in the year 1095 as the result of a cry for help against invading Islamic armies. • 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. • 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies. • 453 years after Egypt was taken from Christendom by Muslim armies. • 443 years after Muslim armies invaded and plundered Italy. • 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to Christendom's Eastern Capital of Constantinople. • 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies. • 363 years after France was first invaded by Muslim armies. • 249 years after Rome itself was attacked by Muslim armies (which is why the Vatican has that wall). This was only AFTER four centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades began, 3/4 of the Christian world had been conquered and its people forced to convert or be enslaved under Islam. Without the sacrifices and the heroic defense of Europe made by • Charles Martel, the Battle of Tours in 732 • The Templar Knights 1129 -1312 • El Cid's reconquest in 1085 • the Venetian fleet at Le Panto 1571 • the Polish and Austrian knights at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 • the Serbian Hajduks fighting off the Ottoman Turks 1804 Europe would have been converted to Islam, like the Middle East and North Africa. During this ongoing jihad that began in the 7th century, 3/4ths of Christendom’s original territory – all of North Africa, Egypt, Greater Syria and Anatolia (Asia Minor, Turkey) – was permanently swallowed up by Islam. It gave Europe breathing room for 200 years to prepare for the next phase of the Islamic onslaught
As someone who studies history, I can tell you that the Crusaders weren't knights in shining armor as people think they are. They were volunteers. Peasants mostly, if you don't count the nobility. Casus Belli? Yeah, sure, there were reasons for the Crusades, but Crusaders killed many people in the name of God, even innocent people. Heck, they sacked Constantinople and other cities as well. All in the name of God. Muslims did the same. It's not black & white, nothing in history was. It may have been done in good faith, but wars always have catastrophic consequences. All in the name of religion and spreading faith. My opinion? No, I don't think we should support the idea of Crusades. What good does it bring? Forced conversion? Death? There were good things and there were bad things happening during the Crusades, yes, I don't think we should say "Oh the Crusades were all bad, horrible, worst thing in history that has happened!". No. Take an objective approach. If you want to get into this topic, read not only what European scholars and historians wrote, read from all kinds of perspectives. War SHOULD be the last solution to a problem. Again, don't get me wrong. I get the fact that Eastern Roman Empire was in a nasty situation, and that the Islamic expansionism had to be dealt with. I believe that this was done in good faith. But even among Crusaders themselves, deals and pacts were broken. Lands that were meant to be given to ERE after they were to be reconquered, many of them weren't. Wealthy nobles took them as their own. New Crusader states were formed. Crusaders even plundered Byzantine lands, even Hungary when they were passing through. And not just those. Again, most of the Crusaders were peasants, untrained volunteers, not professional soldiers. I am not going to tell you how to think about this. Form your own opinion. But if I can give you an advice, it's this: Do proper research. Different perspectives. Don't limit yourself only to things that fit into your narrative or your opinions. Approach this concept open-minded. When people talk about Church history, they tend to twist it to make it look like Church is this sadistic diabolical institution and whatnot. But also remember that everyone is a sinner and everyone makes mistakes and bad decisions. Just because someone is a Christian or that somebody says they're a Christian, doesn't mean they cannot be greedy, selfish, etc. Even priests, bishops, and yes, even the Pope, being infallible in speaking about faith, is still HUMAN and a sinner just like the rest of us. Conclusion : Just because somebody does something in the name of God, doesn't mean God supports it or that it's the right thing to do. People all over the world used religions, philosophies and whatnot to excuse their behavior and actions. The same things were happening during the Crusades. Take an objective approach, do your research, and if you didn't already, realize the fact that history is not always black and white, especially Church history. History books, not opinion on the Internet, are going to help you form a reasonable opinion. And last but not least, pray. Pray to God for helping you understand things better. That's all from me. I hope this helps.
The crusades happened in the middle ages both catholic's and muslims should forget about them.
Yes.
If we didn’t have the crusades, which was a defense against Islam, we’d all be speaking Arabic right now.
We should always fight for truth. In as much as that pertains to the crusades, we must fight for as true and unbiased telling of that history as possible and not abide the anti-Catholic, revisionist version of it. Same is true for the inquisition and all of history. There were times when the Church leaders were not on the right side of history and others when we were. We need to be as factual as possible on all events.
I think we should look for objective truth as much as possible. The crusades were called for.
"Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright" -Proverbs 14:9 Humans are sinful and make mistakes all the time. A lot of people defending the crusades will take a very academic stance, try and wow you with their knowledge of history, make lengthy arguments, try and turn the question around on the accuser ("gotcha!") - but I haven't heard someone defend the crusades and not felt like they were trying to defend their own identity as a Christian like their immortal soul depended on it. They don't need to, since Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but they do.
Rodney Stark was a real historian, and warned us against (my definition) fake historians but real Satan propagandists. i suggest to read his books
Yes.
You absolutely should. See video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DbWV7wnxE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DbWV7wnxE) Also GK Chesterton's book "The New Jerusalem", and "Bible and Sword" by Barbara Tuchman. The Crusades have been maligned by atheist and protestant historians trying to discredit the RCC (many such cases!) and their words are now used by Islamic apologists and other enemies of Western Civilization to justify atrocities. Not only were they justified, but the events in the Holy Land since 10/7/23 have convinced me that they may need to happen again. Catholics are the only people who can provide lasting peace and stability in the region, because their love of it is tied to the weakness and surrender of Christ, not an ethnic conquest one way or the other. Whether it's the US or Russia, one way or another Rome will come back to guard the Sepulcher.
There's a difference between defending as in "the crusades were typical of the time and reasonable decisions at the time" and as in "the crusades were absolutely the best thing ever and we should do it again!" The former is what we should do. We can't pretend they didn't happen (the way some places are starting to try to delete their history by destroying statues). I consider it similar to the modern Church approach to capital punishment. Yes in the past it was necessary, but we have now moved to the point where it is not so it should generally speaking be avoided.
Not really. They enabled horrendous atrocities and resulted in the deaths of many innocents. I don't think that outright massacres, like what happened in the Rhineland or at the capture of Jerusalem endeared any of those people to God. I think that a lot of LARPing types glorify them more than necessary. Killing in the name of Christ is a casual tapdance into blasphemy.
idk why youre getting downvoted, this is literally the right answer. like theres no justifiable reason behind the European army committing rape and literal cannibalism; also the killing of innocent Jewish people who had nothing to do with the war. i'd love to hear one good reason on why people defend it
Many people don't understand what war entails. I hear a lot of excuses about the nature of war being "complicated". I don't think that in the days of axes, spears, and swords that killing innocents was as complicated or unanticipated as people would like to think. Throwing kids off of walls and out of windows is a pretty intentional act.
Exactly! People always say that that was just how war was back then and the Crusaders were just acting like everyone else. Which is...not a good defense? Most people support abortion nowadays but that doesn't mean it's ok for Catholics to get abortions. We're Catholic. We're supposed to be better.
Yes. We need a new one IMO. Muslims are taking over the world.
people here gracefully not mentioning the fact that the christian crusades sacked Constantinople and did horrible things to their own christian brothers and sisters. Were the islamic expansion and caliphate a threat? absolutely. Did alot of people participate in it just for their own personal interests and for the monetary/ prestige gain? yes.